7.3 IMPACTS OF SAFE SYSTEM ADOPTION ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A ROAD AUTHORITY

CHANGED EXPECTATIONS

The goal of Chapter 4. Safe System Approach is that the infrastructure and road environment support a safe outcome for all road users when they make errors and do so by taking into account human crash tolerance thresholds.

Policies, guidelines and programmes need to be developed to ensure progressive advancement towards a network embodying Safe System principles and outcomes. The progressive adoption of Safe System goals and strategies within the operational practice of road authorities requires considerable investment in knowledge, skills, policy and guideline development, both by the road authority as an entity and by individual staff.

More road authorities are recognising the major implications that adoption of a Safe System has. The role of the road authority is to provide a safe network that will require the progressive reduction of the traditional trade-offs that have historically been made between safety on the one hand, and mobility and access on the other. Rather than trade-offs, ‘win-win’ outcomes are required and need to be planned over time.

Support for infrastructure safety investment in order to achieve non-fatal crash risk conditions across the network (the spirit of the Safe System Approach) will become the priority. This is likely to result in substantial increases in the influence of the safety-focused infrastructure compared to other road safety programmes.

Example: A comparison from Sweden between the Safe System/Vision Zero approach and a traditional road safety approach as presented in Table 7.1 is instructive.

A NEW SAFE SYSTEM FOCUS FOR PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS

Road authorities (and all road safety agencies) have to recognise that the framework for understanding and managing crash risk has to be thoroughly rethought. Existing knowledge of the new framework and responsibilities for determining and responding to crash risk in many LMICs is inadequate.

As an illustration of authorities recognising the need to make this major adjustment, and in doing so, Slovenian road safety authorities (Zajc, 2014) express their new approach as shown in Box 7.2.

BOX 7.2: SLOVENIAN ROAD SAFETY MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE

On the other hand, an indicative example of the lack of adequate understanding of crash risk and appropriate good practice responses within the activities of two road authorities is set out in Box 7.3.

BOX 7.3: SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPEAN ROAD AUTHORITY: NOT ADEQUATELY RECOGNISING RISK

The approach adopted in Argentina to implement a Safe System focus is explained in the following case study.

POWERS TO MANAGE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

Implementing Safe System principles on major new road projects and, particularly, delivering improvement in the safety levels of the existing network over time will require, among other measures, adequate controls on roadside access and roadside activity to be put in place. Necessary powers and government actions to regulate abutting land use development and roadside activities on existing roads for this purpose will be required.

Road authorities and local Governments: Processes to assess the safety impact of any proposed land use development need to be established between the road authority and local governments. Potential safety issues need to be identified, and a range of responses developed as potential development conditions in order to minimise future harm. These processes need to be embedded in land use planning and local government legislation.

Favouring Legislation: Laws to support improved compliance by the public with the decisions of the road authority/local government in these matters will be required, and these laws need to be enforced. Consideration should also be given to introducing incentives to encourage local government to adhere to their land use planning policies. It is essential that the stakeholders understand and accept the need for legislation to control land use and roadside development and that the road authority:

• Has a voice (provided by land use planning legislation) in responding to likely impacts of proposed development upon the safe operation of the road system.
• Has the ability to set appropriate roadside access conditions which will be binding upon developers and respected by local government as the responsible authority.
• Can be assured that roadside development controls will be adequately enforced.
• Can be assured that any unapproved activities carried out on the road reserve (such as hawkers/street traders) will receive prompt and effective enforcement attention by the local authorities.
• Establishes a joint road authority/local government monitoring and enforcement group for each local authority area.

Box 7.4 sets out a discussion that addresses a number of highly relevant safety concerns in many LMICs for so-called linear settlements. These common situations reflect inadequate public administration powers (or their lack of application), leading to highly unsafe road environments especially for vulnerable road users.

BOX 7.4: LINEAR SETTLEMENTS

Linear settlement roads result in unsafe conditions, with pedestrians and vehicles continuously entering and exiting the road from each abutting property frontage. Safe System principles indicate that each property entry to a roadway function as a minor intersection, creating the potential for right-angle crashes involving vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway colliding with vehicles travelling along the road.

BOX 7.5: LINEAR SETTLEMENT SOLUTIONS – REPUBLIKA SRPSKA, BOSNIA

As outlined above, unauthorised activities carried out on the roadsides, especially on heavily trafficked routes, need to be regulated and managed to minimise adverse safety impacts for road users. This is an area of considerable weakness in many LMICs, with traders and vendors occupying the road reserve, setting up stalls and goods. In urban areas, traders’ goods and itinerant vendors often encroach on footpaths, forcing pedestrians to use the road for walking. There is often little management of this unauthorised use by the local government authorities or the police. It is a major challenge for road authorities to obtain the attention of government and gain their support to change the situation. However, there are successful examples in LMICs of local governments negotiating relocations of street vendors to public market spaces, re-established away from the main roads to improve safety.

A STRONG NEED FOR ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Adopting a more safety-sensitive road classification for the network that better matches road function, speed limit, layout and design is an important aspiration. As noted above, linear urban development is a characteristic of most LMICs and tends to confound this classification approach. Planning to progress toward the long-term goal of segregation of road use functions and improvement in operational safety is important for Safe System adoption. Suitable planning can guide future road investment (for example in provision of bypass roads) and the associated safety retrofitting of existing roads for their access or distributor functions.

As previously indicated (see Section 4.6. Safe System: Scientific Safety Principles And Their Application ), the Sustainable Safety approach from the Netherlands places great emphasis on a strong road classification system. Road functionality is central to this approach, and it is suggested that roads should have a single function, whether this be as through roads, distributor roads, or access roads. This concept has been well understood for many years, but in more recent years there has been an increased recognition that more needs to be done to ensure this distinction is made. This includes providing an appropriate classification system, allocating all roads to this, and ensuring that the design, and understanding by road users is consistent with this function. Further information is provided on this issue in The Basics: Road user Capacities and Behaviours in Section 8.2. Designing Infrastructure To Encourage Safe Behaviour , including a discussion on ‘self-explaining roads’ to support road user understanding of this functional classification.

This emphasis on clear road function and appropriate speed management directly connects to the Roads-for-Life (R4L) framework defined by the World Bank (Turner et al., 2024). The R4L framework offers a practical tool for achieving this alignment by providing a methodology for setting safe speed limits based on evidence and best practices. Unlike traditional methods, R4L considers vulnerable road users (VRUs) and balances the competing demands of movement and place (Vicroads, 2019), using a practical road classification structure to determine appropriate speed limits and promote self-enforcement through infrastructure design. Therefore, R4L directly addresses the need for a more safety-sensitive road classification system, as advocated by the Sustainable Safety approach, by providing a concrete framework for its implementation.

The main differences between many of the traditional functional road classification approaches and the R4L framework are summarized in Table 7.2.