AITPM presentation

1. What Went Wrong withWhat Went Wrong with
ROAD SAFETYROAD SAFETY
AUDITING?AUDITING?
Robert MorganRobert Morgan
Traffic Engineer &Traffic Engineer &
Road Safety Engineer, MelbourneRoad Safety Engineer, Melbourne

2. “Progress, far from consisting in change,
depends on retentiveness. When change is
absolute there remains no being to improve
and no direction is set for possible
improvement: and when experience is not
retained, as among savages, infancy is
perpetual. Those who cannot remember the
past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana (1863 – 1952)
in ‘The Life of Reason’’

3. Progress = retention of experience
The opposite is childishness
- constant change and
not accounting for
experience

4. Retention
– and passing on –
of experience
requires large enough
and stable organisations

5. The late 1980s
The advent of road safety auditing
Coincided with the advent of economic
rationalism
• Downsizing
• Outsourcing
• (Dumbing down)

6. Adverse outcomes: typically with safety & maintenance
A dam fails
A building collapses
A fire kills people
Road safety shifts
- from manage and fix the roads
- to focus on driver behaviour
Adverse
outcomes
are obvious
Adverse
outcomes
are hidden

7. Road Safety Fundamentalism:
“Acceptable drivers all must be
- mild, obedient, good as He”

8. - is a way to help practitioners produce a
better (safer) project
- through the input of an experienced
road safety engineer
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing
This input is not always happeningThis input is not always happening

9. - the bar for entry is set too low
- how can less experienced people gain
more experience?
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
1. Experience is Undervalued1. Experience is Undervalued

10. - the original problem is now our problem
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
1. Experience is Undervalued1. Experience is Undervalued

11. - Audits led by an accredited Senior Road Safety Auditor: 60%
- Audits led by an accredited Road Safety Auditor: 7%
- Audits led by a person not accredited at all: 33%
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
1. Experience is Undervalued1. Experience is Undervalued

12. - Road Safety Engineering experience,
not just engineering experience
- detailed knowledge of some technical
aspects
e.g. crash barriers;
direction signs
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
2. The Right Type of Experience2. The Right Type of Experience

13. Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
2. The Right Type of Experience2. The Right Type of Experience
Sign 1 – I need to exit for
Western Ring Road
Sign 2 – I need to exit for
Western Ring Road

14. Sign 3 – I need to exit .. er stay .. er exit .. er .. Too Late !!
Wrong signing convention for a Freeway-to-Freeway interchange
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
2. The Right Type of Experience2. The Right Type of Experience

15. - Needs a Code of Conduct for Road
Safety Auditors
- Needs State Road Authority / Local
Government Engineering / Consultant
Road Safety Audit Panel in each
state/territory
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
2. The Right Type of Experience2. The Right Type of Experience

16. - It does matter
- But it’s just the start
- No need to obsess about it.
Get the main issues covered
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
3. Training3. Training

17. Some issues are not on the radar, e.g. -
- Auditing the specification for Design
and Construct contracts
- Auditing land use developments;
Getting a road safety engineer involved
in the concept phases of land use
(e.g. Structure Plans)
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
4. Commitment to Auditing4. Commitment to Auditing

18. Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
4. Commitment to Auditing4. Commitment to Auditing
Design and Construct
Specifications

19. Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
4. Commitment to Auditing4. Commitment to Auditing Not auditing
at all

20. Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
4. Commitment to Auditing4. Commitment to Auditing

21. Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
4. Commitment to Auditing4. Commitment to Auditing

22. Dr Ray Brindle, 1989:
14 conditions by which any new development would
be deemed to satisfy traffic performance,
amenity and road safety requirements.
Conditions 3: There are no direct frontages
to arterial or district distributor roads,
or to connectors.
“… when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
4. Commitment to Auditing4. Commitment to Auditing

23. ‘ … concern about safety, however genuine,
is insufficient. Our professional
standards and warrants demonstrate a
great deal of concern for safety, but
these standards are too rarely based on
a defensible knowledge of facts’
Ezra Hauer, Professor of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
5. Auditing to Standards5. Auditing to Standards

24. Standards ≠ Safety
In training workshops, I cover this topic
It needs to be in the
national road safety
engineering syllabus
Get more people to gain experience
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
5. Auditing to Standards5. Auditing to Standards

25. In 1989 (1st
edition of the audit guide)
- it was Quality Assurance
‘Why is road safety audit needed at all,
now that there is QA ?’
QA is process-focussed: success is ‘steps completed’
Auditing is about ‘identifying safety issues’: needs experience
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
6. Fads6. Fads

26. Now (4th
edition of the audit guide)
- it’s Safe Road System approach
What exactly is it?
A lot of ‘telling others what to do’: drivers to be ‘compliant’
No interest in our actions having credibility
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
6. Fads6. Fads

27. Safe Road System approach:
1. Obsession with speed limits
2. Otherwise, forgiving roads & roadsides
What about the myriad other avoidable
road layout and design issues that affect
road safety?
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
6. Fads6. Fads

28. We need them!
Experience in W.A.
Involving a broader base of experience:
state road authorities, local government
engineering & experienced consultants
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems
7. Road Safety Audit Panels7. Road Safety Audit Panels

29. Obsession with systematising and harmonising
processes – an indication of inexperience
Absence of experienced practitioners in project
Not a collaborative approach
Wanting a uniform format for reports
Enthusiasm for electronic tools
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – the Future ?– the Future ?
Proposals for new Audit guidelinesProposals for new Audit guidelines

30. Confused about the relationship between audits
and Safe Road System approach
- SRSA comes at Response phase
- can’t ‘audit to SRSA principles’
Off-target ideas
- use of ‘consider’ in audit recommendations
- assessments at reduced cost where road
managers may lack ready access to road safety
auditors. Misunderstands the need for road
safety engineering experience.
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – the Future ?– the Future ?
Proposals for new Audit guidelinesProposals for new Audit guidelines

31. Missing items & little interest in them:
• Model procedures for audits of land use developments.
• The types of experience needed for different aspects of a
big project.
• Confirming that experience is the no. 1 requirement for
successful audits.
• Design and construct projects: how to include auditing.
• Safety vs. standards: expand this section.
• Five years experience is too low for an audit team leader.
• Too many major problems with design projects are still
getting through. Discuss as case studies.
• How to deal with a lapse in audits/year if experienced.
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing – the Future ?– the Future ?
Proposals for new Audit guidelinesProposals for new Audit guidelines

32. New guidelines: a travel guide to Neverland?
The bar is set too low for audit team leader
experience.
Broadly-based RSA Panels are needed.
Back to the original problem: how do we get
road safety engineering experience input
and how do we get more people to gain
that experience?
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing
ConclusionsConclusions

33. Who can we rely on to get road safety audit
back on the rails?
- Austroads?
- ARRB?
- Experienced practitioners?
- Who else?
Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing
ConclusionsConclusions