Rating the Road for Vulnerable Users February 17, 2011

Rating the Road for Vulnerable Users

February 17, 2011

A World Free of High-risk Roads

Road crashes are one of the top three causes of death for

5 to 44 year olds.World Health Organisation

Road deaths per 100,000 m population, 2008

IRTAD, 2009* 2007 (p) provisional

iRAP is a not-for-profit working in partnership with government and non-government organisations to:

– assess high-risk roads and create targeted safety plans

– provide training, technology and support

– track road safety performance

About iRAP

Development of RAP

• Vulnerable Road Users:– Peds– Bikes (increasingly, electric bikes)– Motorscooter/cycles

• Star Ratings concept

Road Inspection Data

Road Safety Investment Plan

Road Protection Scores Star Rating

Sources of data

• Examples:– Elvik, R. and Vaa, T. (2004) The handbook of

road safety measures– Ogden, K. (1996) Safer Roads: A Guide to

Road Safety Engineering.

A World Free of High-risk RoadsRoad inspections

Across

Pedestrians

SpeedSidewalk provision – left

Sidewalk provision – rightSide friction

SpeedNumber of lanes

Median typeCrossing facilities

Crossing facilities quality

Road users Crash types Road attributes

Road Protection Scores

Across

Intersection

Bicyclists

SpeedRoadside severity – left

Roadside severity – rightLane width

Paved shoulderCurvature

Curve qualityDelineation

Road conditionFacilitates for bikes

Side friction

SpeedCrossing facilitiesNumber of lanes

Median typeCrossing facilities

Crossing facilities quality

SpeedIntersection type

Intersecting road volumeIntersection quality

Minor access density

Road users Crash types Road attributes

Traffic

• Total traffic flow recorded in AADT– This should include all motorised vehicles– The numeric value will be entered for each 100m

section

Bicycle flow

Medium

- 6 + bicycles per 100m- 3 to 5 bicycles per 100m- 1 to 3 bicycles per 100m- No bicycles present

Notes:

Raters should assess the general proportions of bicyclist in the flow over an extended length – and apply that for all segments along that road until an obvious change in proportions is noted.

Pedestrian flow – crossing road

Medium

- 6 + crossing per 100m- 3 to 5 crossing per 100m- 1 to 3 crossing per 100m- No pedestrians crossing daily

Notes:It is acknowledged that this is a random sampling of pedestrian activity, it is not intended to reflect an exact pedestrian volume. This data should be used in association with land-use data and local knowledge to derive the pedestrian demand rating required by the iRAP model.

Pedestrian flow – along road

Medium

- 6 + along per 100m- 3 to 5 along per 100m- 1 to 3 along per 100m- No pedestrians along daily

Notes:It is acknowledged that this is a random sampling of pedestrian activity, it is not intended to reflect an exact pedestrian volume. This data should be used in association with land-use data and local knowledge to derive the pedestrian demand rating required by the iRAP model.

Area type

Semi-urban

Houses

Urban:• continuous development > 800m.

Semi Urban:• continuous development 200m to 800m• higher speed roads on the outskirts of towns• rural roads passing through lower density development or villages

Area type

Rural:• All other areas

Number of lanes

Two lanes in direction of travel

Speed limit

>120 km/h

110 km/h

100 km/h

90 km/h

80 km/h

70 km/h

60 km/h

50 km/h

<40 km/h

NotesThe actual posted numerical speed limit should be recordedIf no speed limit is signed, the default speed limit set by law for that type of road should be used.

Lane width

Medium

2.75 to 3.25m

Lane width is 2.75 to 3.25m

Paved shoulder width

0 to 1m wide

0-1m 0-1m

Paved shoulder is 0 to 1m

Unpaved shoulder width

1 to 2.4m wide

1-2.4m 1-2.4m

Unpaved shoulder is 1 to 2.4m

Shoulder rumble strips

Yes - present

Only rumble strips that are approximately greater than 30cm in width and 5cm depth/height should be recorded.

Delineation

Adequate

Signs warning of severe hazards, and centre and edge markings are generally present and visible

Road Condition

Road has serious defects which are likely to result in frequent or unpredictable impact on vehicle control

Sidewalk – Left

1 to 3m Non-physical separation from traffic

Sidewalk separated from roadway by between 1m and 3m but no barrier provided

Sidewalk – Left

Physical barrier

Sidewalk separated from road by a physical barrier at least 1m high

Side Friction

Medium

Activities or parking on one side of the road spill out onto the road

Pedestrian crossing facilities

Refuge only

No crossing is marked but a central refuge is provided for pedestrians

Unsignalised marked crossing without refuge

The crossing is well marked but has no central refuge

Unsignalised marked crossing with refuge

The crossing is well marked and split with a central refuge

Signalised without refuge

Traffic signals control pedestrian and vehicle movements

Signalised with refuge

Traffic signals control pedestrian and vehicle movements; the crossing is split with a central refuge

Grade separated facility

The crossing is physically separated and does not bring pedestrians into conflict with traffic

Quality of crossing

Rapid or unexpected speed adjustments might be needed to avoid risk to pedestrians

Facilities for bicycles

No specific provisions for bicycles

Dedicated bicycle lane on roadway

Dedicated bicycle lane separated from traffic only by lane marking on roadway or by <1m of raised or paved surface

Segregated Bicycle path

Bicycle path separated from traffic by at least 1m raised or paved surface

Segregated Bicycle path with barrier

Segregated bicycle path separated by a physical barrier or located at least 10m from the roadThe physical barrier must be sufficient to restrain a vehicle from entering the bicycle facility at the posted speed limit.

Roadside severity – Bike path

• Cliff• Distance to object 0 to 5m• Steep embankment slope• Deep drainage ditch• Distance to object 5 to 10m• Cut• Safety barrier• Motorcycle friendly barrier• Distance to object > 10m

Notes:

Roadside severity – Segregated Bicyclist Path records the roadside when there are segregated bicycle facilities

Roadside severity - Right

Cliff or equivalent hazard that will result in certain fatality regardless of speed

Distance to object 0 to 5m

Aggressive objects within effective distance of 5mRoadside gradient should be taken into account

Examples of hazardous objects are:• Lighting columns• Trees greater than 10cm diameter• Posts greater than 10cm diameter• Structures that cause a rapid deceleration when hit• Ramped ends of safety barriers

Steep embankment slope

Embankments with :• >1:3 slope & drop >5m• >1:2 slope & drop >1.5m

Rule of thumbA slope should be recorded if a vehicle is likely to roll on it

Deep drainage ditch

Ditch of material, depth, or severity of angled face likely to result in severe injury to vehicle occupants.If the ditch does not if this criteria it should be recorded

Rule of thumbOnly record a ditch if most of the vehicle would drop into the ditch.

Distance to object 5 to 10m

Aggressive objects within effective distance of 5 to 10mRoadside gradient should be taken into account

Non-aggressive cut face of at least 2m heightExamples of cut are:• Earth bound banks• Grass banks

Rock faces should not be recorded as cut

Safety barrier

Barrier sufficient to restrain most cars and small vehicles

Motorcycle friendly barrier

Barrier designed specifically to restrain motorcycles without injury to the rider

Major intersection

3 leg signalised turn lane

3-leg intersection or T-junction with a turn lane (crossing opposing traffic) and signals

Major intersection

Roundabout

All roundabouts

Major intersection

Railway crossing – Active

An at-grade railway crossing with a physical device to warn of an approaching train (flashing lights and/or boom gates)

Major intersection

Merge lane

Side-traffic joins the road being assessed via a merge lane. This is typically the case at grade separated intersections.

If the merge lane is longer than 100m it should only be recorded once

Major intersection

Median crossing – Informal

Divided roads only - A high demand U-turn location (formal or informal) that has no acceleration or deceleration lanes and/or the pavement surface is in poor condition

Major intersection

Median crossing – Formal

Divided roads only - A high demand U-turn location (formal) that has appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes and the pavement surface is in good condition

Median type

Centre line only

Single or double central line

If the road is undivided and has no markings it should be recorded as:

Median type = centre line onlyDelineation = poor

Median type

Central hatching

Marked central strip at least 1m wide Examples of marking are:• Stripes• Coloured paving

Median type

Rumble strip / flexi posts

Central rumble strip or flexible post, but no continuous physical divider.Examples are:• Raised markings• Grooved roadway • Small physical obstacles

Textured paint is not considered rumble strip

Median type

Continuous central turning lane

Continuous central lane designated as a turning lane

Median type

Physical median width 1 to 5m

Divided road with defined median of different material of width 1 to 5m

Median type

Safety barrier

Divided road with safety barrier to international standards

If barrier is obviously defective, rate as though there is no barrier present

Median type

Safety barrier

Divided road with safety barrier to international standards

If barrier is obviously defective, rate as though there is no barrier present

Safer Roads Investment Plan

RPS x traffic volume x calibration factor

Deaths and serious injuries (before)

Apply countermeasures new RPS

Deaths and serious injuries (after)

Reduction in deaths and serious injuries and economic benefit

Safer Roads Investment Plans

Country Roads Assessed (km)

KSI's Saved (20 year) KSI Reduction BCR $ / KSI Saved

Malaysia 3,650 32,000 -32% 15 $5,700

Chile 2,400 19,000 -44% 31 $3,800

Serbia 3,000 5,600 -21% 7 $11,100

Average (10 projects) 23,000 140,000 -25% 14 $4,700

* 20 year benefits and costs in USD ** KSI = Killed and Seriously Injured

Selected recommendations$US, 20 years

Counter-measure

Country Length / sites

Deaths and serious injuries prevented

BCRNumber $ per

Safety barriers Kenya 200 km 13,300 $900 21

Footpaths Chile 530 km 6,100 $4,500 28

Ped crossings Costa Rica 310 3,100 $4,000 19

Shoulders Serbia 290 km 1,200 $8,600 10

M/cycle lanes Malaysia 270 km 900 $6,000 15

Latin America and the CaribbeanRegional Director: Julio Urzua

Meso American HighwayiRAP planning to assess 3000km through 7 countries

ChileUS$32m plan to prevent 19,000 KSI

PeruiRAP recommendations in US$540 project

ParaguayCapacity-building project supported by IDB in 2010/11

Argentina3,100km assessment across national and Cordoba State highways

Costa RicaiRAP results part of major review of speed limitsMexico

MOU discussions with the Departments of Health and Transport

KSI = killed and seriously injured

3,500,000 kmLength of road assessed

1,000,000Deaths and serious injuries that could be prevented

$US 70,000,000,000Annual economic benefit

iRAP and a Decade of Action

Pedestrian Safety Features

• barrier between sidewalk and edge of traveled way• sidewalk or side path• Separation distance between sidewalk or side path and

edge of traveled way• Mean speed of traffic under free-flow conditions• Posted speed limit (or legal limit if not posted)• Number of lanes for use by through traffic

• Urban area boundaries• bus or taxi stops• parking on the side of the roadway within 2 m outside of

the edge of the traveled way

Encroachment

Traffic

Interaction

Pedestrian Safety Features (cont.)

• grade separated pedestrian crossing facility• pedestrian signal for crosswalk• marked crosswalk at pedestrian crossing

– Retroreflectivity of crosswalk markings

• advanced signing for pedestrian crossing• Sight distance to pedestrian crossing

• traffic barrier in median• unpaved median with raised curbs and no traffic barrier• paved median with raised curbs and no traffic barrier• paved median with no curbs and no traffic barrier• Width of median• Centerline rumble strips• roadway centerline marking

Crossing

Median refuge

Bicycle Safety Features

• side path (separated from traveled way)• barrier between traveled way and side path• bicycle markings on pavement of side path• bicycle signing for side path• distance from side path to traveled way• marked bicycle lane adjacent to travel lanes• paved shoulder• width of paved shoulder• parking within 2 m outside of the edge of the traveled way • percentage of the road surface disturbed by potholes or

other surface disturbances

Traffic Interaction

Bicycle Safety Features

• Posted speed limit or Legal speed limit (if not posted)

• Mean speed of traffic under free-flow conditions (from actual traffic data)

• Number of lanes for use by through traffic • Total width of lanes serving through traffic • potholes or other road surface disturbances that

can potentially affect vehicle operations• bus or taxi stops• Urban area boundaries

Traffic

Interaction

Bicycle Safety Features (cont.)

• traffic barrier in median• unpaved median with raised curbs and no traffic

barrier • paved median with raised curbs and no traffic

barrier • paved median with no curbs and no traffic

barrier • Width of median• median opening• Condition of median opening

Median refuge

• drainage ditch with depth of at least 1 m within 5 m of the traveled way

• fill slope (earth embankment sloping away from the traveled way) with slope of 1:2 or steeper with a height of at least 1.5 m

• fill slope (earth embankment sloping away from the traveled way) with slope of 1:3 to 1:2 with a height of at least 5 m

• cliff with open drop within 10 m of traveled way• cut slope (earth embankment sloping down toward traveled

way) of at least 2 m in height• roadside object greater than 100 mm in diameter on the side

of the roadway• Distance from roadside object greater than 100 mm in

diameter to traveled wayRoadside hazards

• steel guardrail on the side of the roadway • concrete barrier on the side of the roadway • cable barrier on the side of the roadway • roadside delineators, esp. on curve• edge line markings, esp. on curve

– Retroreflectivity of edge line markings, esp. on curves

• shoulder rumble strip• lane line markings, esp. on curve

– Retroreflectivity of lane line markings, esp. on curves

• centerline marking, esp. on curve – Retroreflectivity of centerline marking, esp. on curves

• centerline rumble strip

Barriers and marking

• advance signing on approach to curve • Radius of curvature for curve• Sight distance to beginning of horizontal curve• chevron markers on curve

• Sight distance to intersection • advance signing on intersection approach • traffic signal control at intersection (stop-and-go signals, not a flasher) • roundabout• left-turn lane at intersection (far side of intersection) • left-turn lane at intersection (near side of intersection) • intersection leg on side of roadway • driveway• entrance ramp merging into roadway

Curves

Intersections

• Sight distance to pedestrian crossing • grade separated pedestrian crossing facility• marked crosswalk at pedestrian crossing • pedestrian signal for crosswalk • advanced signing for pedestrian crossing• Retroreflectivity of crosswalk markings, esp. on

curves

• railroad grade crossing • flashing signals at railroad grade crossing • gates at railroad grade crossing

Pedestrian Crossings

Railroads

Rating the Road for Vulnerable Users February 17, 2011

Documents

Dallas Latest Bicycle Ordinance for Vulnerable Road Users

Exploring Color Contrast: A Simple Measure to Protect Vulnerable Road Users - Marisa Cruz, EVONIK

AMBIENT AND PERVASIVE TECHNOLOGY DESIGNING SAFEGUARDS FOR VULNERABLE USERS BY TARYN RICHARSON & MELANIE FLETCHER

VULNERABLE ROAD USERS

Vulnerable Road Users Inquiry Submission...promote among driving instructors and bus, taxi, delivery and truck delivery drivers an awareness of vulnerable road users and how best to

Vulnerable road users: School children and road accidents

Response of Vulnerable Road Users to Visual Information ... · Response of Vulnerable Road Users to Visual Information from Autonomous Vehicles in Shared Spaces Walter Morales Alvarez1

Zero rating and end-users freedom of choice: An economic ......zero rating offers materially restrict end-users’ freedom of choice in practice as defined in the open internet Regulation

Exploring the Determinants of Vulnerable Road Users’ Crash Severity in State Roads

Vulnerable road users in the age of automated vehicles: How to

Cisco Intrusion Prevention Solution Overview€¦ · Scanner A Windows Server Linux Server Not Vulnerable Filter Event Vulnerable Increase Risk Rating Event / Action Filtering Monitoring

Correlates of fatality risk of vulnerable road users in Delhi

Enhanced Protection of Vulnerable Road Users€¦ · VEHITS 2018, Funchal, Portugal, March 16, 2018 Enhanced Protection of Vulnerable Road Users Miguel Ángel Sotelo President. IEEE

SaferBraIn - Final Meeting – Vulnerable Road Users and the Traffic Safety Problem in Brazil

3 vulnerable road users

Integration of vulnerable road users in cooperative ITS systems · 2017. 4. 11. · ORIGINAL PAPER Integration of vulnerable road users in cooperative ITS systems Johan Scholliers1

Vulnerable Road Users Safety in Thailand · 2018-03-23 · Vulnerable Road Users Safety in South East Asia 18 March 2018, Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety Assoc. Prof. Kunnawee

How to improve urban safety for vulnerable road users ... · How to improve urban safety for vulnerable road users. Donostia / San Sebastián European Road Safety Day Pedestrian safety:

Credit Rating Ruchita Agarwal. Agenda What are Credit Ratings? Leading Rating Agencies Understanding Rating Scales Users of Credit Ratings Ratings Process

“Crash Risk analysis for Vulnerable road Users For Urban ...urbanmobilityindia.in/Upload/Conference/48ef8934-d9d7-4d9e-a795-… · “Crash Risk analysis for Vulnerable road Users