Abstract:
Safe System principles are an accepted part of road safety strategies in Victoria, Australia. The underpinnings are that humans are fallible and will inevitably make mistakes when driving, riding, or walking. Nevertheless, road trauma is not inevitable. No one should be killed or seriously injured on our roads. Consequently, to prevent serious trauma, the road system must be forgiving, so that collision forces do not exceed limits that the human body can tolerate. At a national level, the Australian Government has committed to the Safe System. In recent years, translating the agreed philosophical aspirations of the Safe System into practical application has been challenging. Also, assessing a project’s alignment with Safe System principles has caused much debate and consternation. A key change in thinking has been that a hazard free and driveable roadside (clear zone) is less likely to reduce the likelihood of fatal or serious injuries when compared to shielding the entire roadside with continuous safety barrier treatments. This paper examines the concept of a “Safe System compliant” roadside and reflects on the site-specific constraints that have influenced the use of safety barriers in the projects assessed. In February 2016, Austroads (the association of Australian and New Zealand Road Transport and Traffic Authorities) published AP-R509-16 Safe System Assessment Framework to provide guidance in assessing a project’s alignment with the principles of the Safe System approach. This paper reviews the application of this framework draws on case studies of three significantly different roadside safety projects which have sought to incorporate Safe System principles.
