TABLE OF CONTENTS

8 ROADSIDE SAFETY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.1.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.1.2 Safety objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
8.1.3 The "Forgiving Roadside" approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
8.1.4 Design Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
8.1.5 Roadside safety analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
8.1.6 Road safety audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
8.2 ROADSIDE HAZARDS AND CLEAR ZONE CONCEPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
8.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
8.2.2 Elements of the clear zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8
8.2.3 Factors influencing the clear zone design domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
8.2.4 Determining width of clear zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10
8.2.5 Best practices in respect of roadside vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10
8.3 SIGN AND OTHER SUPPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12
8.3.1 Basis for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12
8.3.2 Breakaway supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13
8.3.3 Design and Location Criteria for Sign Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15
8.3.4 Design approach for lighting supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16
8.4 TRAFFIC SAFETY BARRIERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16
8.4.1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16
8.4.2 Determining Need for Safety Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17
8.4.3 Longitudinal roadside barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18
8.4.4 Median barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-27
8.5 IMPACT ATTENUATION DEVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30
8.5.1 Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30
8.5.2 Design/selection of impact attenuators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31
8.5.3 Functional considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31
8.5.4 Sand-filled plastic barrel impact attenuators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32
8.6 RUNAWAY VEHICLE FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-34
8.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-34
8.6.2 Types of escape ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-34
8.6.3 Criteria for provision of escape ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-35
8.6.4 Location of runaway-vehicle facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36
8.6.5 Arrestor bed design features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38
8.7 BRAKE CHECK AND BRAKE REST AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 8.1 Design elements that influence road safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Table 8.2 Clear zone distances (metres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11
Table 8.3: Roadside obstacles normally considered for shielding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23
Table 8 4. Recommended minimum offset distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24
Table 8.5 Recommended maximum flare rates for barrier design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25
Table 8.6 Recommended run-out lengths for barrier design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26
Table 8.7 : Impact attenuator and end terminal application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31
Table 8.8 : Space requirements for plastic drum attenuators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32
Table 8.9: Length of Arrestor Bed (Over Uniform Gravel Depth) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8.1: Roadside safety analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

Figure 8.2: Roadside recovery zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
Figure 8.3: Adjustment for clear zones on curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12
Figure 8.4: Breakaway supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13
Figure 8.5: Classification of traffic barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17
Figure 8.6: Classification of longitudinal barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19
Figure 8.7: Warrants for use of roadside barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22
Figure 8.8: Roadside barrier elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23
Figure 8.9: Length of need for adjacent traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26
Figure 8.10: Length of need for opposing traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26
Figure 8.11: Space requirement for plastic drum attenuators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32
Figure 8.12: Typical arrangement of sand-filled barrel attenuators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-33
Figure 8.13: Typical arrestor beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-34
Figure 8.14: Layout of arrestor bed adjacent to carriageway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-36
Figure 8.15: Layout of arrestor bed remote from carriageway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37
 Chapter 8
ROADSIDE SAFETY
8.1 INTRODUCTION ing road safety and that, in the design of new
roads or the upgrading of existing ones, particu-
8.1.1 General lar attention should be given to safety as a prime
design criterion.
Road crashes, to varying degrees, are caused
by defects attributable to the vehicle, the driver A safe road should:

or the road or by combination of these defects.

 Warn and inform road users of changes
in the approaching road environment;
In addition, a significant percentage of deaths
 Guide and control road users safely
on roads in South Africa occur as a result of
through the road environment;
pedestrians being on the road. The road, or  Provide a forgiving roadside environ-
more fully, the road environment, has been esti- ment;
mated to contribute to 28 per cent of all road  Provide a controlled release of informa-
crashes in South Africa. Various studies have tion;

indicated that up to 40 per cent or more of crash  Provide an aesthetically pleasing land-
scape;
reduction, which could reasonably be expected
 Maintain road user interest and concen-
on the road system, could accrue from the pro-
tration;
vision of safer roads. The cost of road crashes
 Not surprise road users;
to society in South Africa exceeds the annual  Give consistent messages to road
expenditure on roads, thus the expenditure of users; and
considerable sums of money can be justified in  Provide good visibility for all road users.
reducing the crash rates on roads through
improved design appropriate and standards and Numerous research projects have established
by catering for the presence of pedestrians on relationships between crashes and geometric
roads. Crashes resulting from simply leaving design elements (as well as operating speeds
the roadway regardless of the underlying cause, and traffic volumes).
represent a substantial portion of the total road
Geometric Design Guide
crash problem i.e. "run-off-the-road" (ROR) The various geometric design features of a

accidents account for 25 per cent of all road road, shown in Table 8.1, affect safety by:

crashes in South Africa. They occur on both  Influencing the ability of the driver to

straight and curved sections of road and gener- maintain vehicle control and identify

ally involve either rollover of the vehicle or colli- hazards. Significant features include:

sion with fixed objects, such as trees, roadside Lane and shoulder width;
Horizontal and vertical align-
structures etc.
ment;
Sight distance;
It is thus obvious that the roadside environment
Superelevation; and
and its design have a vital role to play in improv-

8-1
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Pavement surface and drainage. roadside design can mitigate the severity of a
 Influencing the number and types of crash. This interaction between road, driver and
opportunities that exist for conflict vehicle characteristics unfortunately compli-
between vehicles. Significant features cates attempts to estimate the accident reduc-
include:
tion potential of a particular safety improvement.
o Access control;
o Intersection design;
The construction of a road is typically a trade-off
o Number of lanes;and
o Medians. between standards and the cost of providing

 Affecting the consequences of an out-of- them. High design standards might be expen-
control vehicle leaving the travel lanes. sive to provide. However, the cost to society of
Significant features include: road crashes and deaths often exceeds the total
o Shoulder width and type; annual expenditure on roads. Reducing initial
o Edge drop;
construction (or capital) costs of road projects
o Roadside conditions;
can result in increased life cycle costs if the cost
o Side slopes; and
of accidents, injuries and deaths is included in
o Traffic barriers.
the economic calculations. It is the design engi-
neer's responsibility to inform the client of the
In addition to geometric features, a variety of
consequences of inadequate expenditure on
other factors affect road safety, including other
safety.
elements of the overall road environment, such
as:
 Pavement condition; It is often extremely difficult, if not impossible, to

 Weather; correct safety defects at a later stage without

 Lighting; major reconstruction. For this reason, designing
 Traffic flows; for safety should occur at the outset, or be pro-
 Traffic regulation; vided for in stage construction drawings. Road
 Presence of pedestrians;
safety audits on the design, carried out by an
o Intoxication and
independent person or team should take place
o Age;
at various stages in the project, as provided for
 Vehicle characteristics, such as:
o Size; in Volume 4 of the South African Road Safety
Geometric Design Guide

o Mass; and Manual. Although this design guide focuses on

o Braking capability. road design features, the psychological aspects
of driver behaviour are always present. An error
The effect of road design is somewhat obscured in perception or judgement or a faulty action on
by the presence of these extraneous factors and the part of the driver can easily lead to a crash.
most accidents result from a combination of fac-
tors interacting in ways that prevent a single fac- Roads should be designed in such a manner
tor being identified as the cause of a crash. that only one decision at a time is required from
However, even when a vehicle leaves the road a driver, ensuring that he/she is never surprised
owing to driver error or mechanical failure, good by an unexpected situation and that adequate

8-2
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
time is provided to make the decision. 8.1.2 Safety objectives
Research has shown that the number of accidents
increases as the number of decisions required Broadly, there are three avenues of action pos-
by the driver increases. This matter is dis- sible for mitigating road crashes and their con-
cussed in more detail in chapter 3 of this docu- sequences;
ment, as well as in Volume 1 of the South  By reducing the possibility that run-off
will occur;
Geometric Design Guide
African Road Safety Manual.
 Once the run-off does occur, by provid-
ing opportunities for the driver of the
Standardisation in road design features and traf- vehicle to recover and return to the road
fic control devices plays an important role in without incident, and
reducing the number of required decisions, as  If a crash does occur, by providing

the driver becomes aware of what to expect on design elements to reduce the severity
of that collision.
a certain type of road. However it should be
noted that standardization alone does not nec-
essarily ensure a safe facility, hence the require- The first of these areas of endeavour is dealt
ment for a safety audit of the design. with by incorporating features in the overall

8-3
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 design of the road which will reduce the possi- ophy and approaches. Transportation
bility that run-off will occur. These features are Research Circular 435 states that:-
influenced to a large extent by the selected
design speed. "Basically a forgiving roadside is one free of
obstacles which could cause serious injuries to
occupants of an errant vehicle. To the extent
This chapter deals with the latter two of these
possible, a relatively flat, unobstructed roadside
three possibilities. It provides the designer with
recovery area is desirable, and when these con-
guidance on the design of roadside environment
ditions cannot be provided, hazardous features
that includes elements to allow for recovery on
in the recovery area should be made breakaway
the part of the driver, as well as features which
or shielded with an appropriate barrier".
are intended to reduce the severity of such acci-
dents as do occur.
When a vehicle leaves the traffic lane, the path
of the vehicle and any object in or near that path
More specifically, it is recommended that the fol-
become contributing factors to the degree of
lowing safety objectives be adopted when a
severity of the crash. By designing a forgiving
road is designed:
roadside the severity of crashes can be
 Separate potential conflict points and
reduce potential conflict areas; reduced. The concept of designing a forgiving
 Control the relative speeds of the con- roadside should not be regarded as a by-prod-
flicting vehicles; uct of the application of safety criteria to each
 Guide the driver through unusual sec- design element, but as an integral part of the
tions;
total engineering for the road.
 Ensure that the needs of pedestrians
and cyclists (if relevant) are also consid-
The need for a forgiving roadside is paramount
ered;
 Provide a roadside environment that for- on the outside of horizontal curves with radii of

gives a driver's errant or inappropriate less than 1 000 metres, where the possibility of
behaviour, by attention to details such an errant vehicle running off the road is great-
as the safe placement of roadside furni- est. However, this statement does not imply
ture and by the location and selection of that horizontal curves with radii in excess of
Geometric Design Guide

types of traffic barrier.

1 000 metres are always safe since the phe-
nomena of "risk adaptation", whereby drivers
8.1.3 The "Forgiving Roadside" approach concentrate less and drive at higher speeds on
sections of road they consider to be safe, should
The forgiving roadside concept, coined in the be taken into account.
1960's, relates to the approach of making provi-
sion for errant vehicles leaving the roadway by 8.1.4 Design Focus
incorporating design elements that reduce the
consequences of such departure. This concept The focus of design measures outlined in this
is an integral part of modern road design philos- chapter is primarily one of improving road safe-

8-4
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
ty through roadside hazard management by the ments and other aspects of the facility design,
design and provision of appropriate recovery and between the road itself, the driver and the
and protection measures. The effectiveness of vehicle. As a result, information touching on
road safety features depends greatly on five road design issues necessarily is available from
aspects; many sources. Designers should not rely on
 Knowledge of the safety characteristics this Guide as the sole source of information on
and limitations of roadside features by roadside design issues, particularly when deal-
the designer (and the maintenance per- ing with unusual or local conditions that depart
sonnel); from generally accepted situational norms.
 The correct choice of appropriate treat- Particular attention should be paid to the South
ment; Africa Road Safety Manual produced by the
 The correct installation of the roadside
South African Committee of Land Transport
safety features;
Officials (COLTO).
 The maintenance of the roadside safety
features and roadside environment; and
8.1.5 Roadside safety analysis
 Regular monitoring of installations to
ensure they perform adequately.
The design of the roadside environment is a
complex problem. Evaluation of alternative
There are two needs that are the key to effective designs and choosing between them are difficult
attention to safety in the roadside design tasks, which involve
process.  degrees of uncertainty with respect to
1. The need for explicit evaluation of the occurrence of crashes;
design trade-offs with an impact on road safety.  the outcome of crashes in terms of

In the traditional design process, attention to severity; and

safety has usually been implicit, not explicit.

 the real costs of the property damage,
injuries, and fatalities which can result.
The common myth among designers is that if
current "standards" are met, then the road is
Nonetheless, such analysis which provides an
safe. The reality is that road design "standards"
explicit framework for considering design trade-
are often no more than a limit : one should not
offs is a much more desirable approach to road-
Geometric Design Guide
provide less than the standard stipulates but,
side safety design than meeting arbitrary "stan-
within limits, to provide more is often better.
dards" whose underpinnings may or may not be
Furthermore, just meeting the standard does not
appropriate to a given situation. Figure 8.1 illus-
mean that an appropriate amount of safety has
trates an algorithm for conducting a roadside
been provided.
safety analysis.
2. The need to recognize that the design
of the roadside environment is a highly complex
and probabilistic process. There are many lev- The process is generally based on two funda-

els of interaction between different roadside mental models.

design components, between roadside ele-

 Predictive models that provide a way of

8-5
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 estimating collision frequencies and cally investigates the roadside safety of a partic-
severities under a wide variety of condi- ular project, has a proven potential to improve
tions; and the safety of both proposed and existing facili-
 Cost-effectiveness models that provide
ties.
a way of quantifying the life-cycle costs
(and benefits) associated with any given
set of safety measures. Road safety audits, especially during the design
stage, create the opportunity to eliminate, as far
Predictive models have been developed and as possible, road safety problems in the provi-
deployed by a number of agencies in North sion of new road projects. They should be seen,
America. Although the latest AASHTO however, as part of the broader scope of the phi-
Roadside Design Guide probably represents the losophy of roadside hazard management.
most current and widely accepted effort in this
regard, designers should be aware that the state A road safety audit is a formal examination of
of the art in this area is continually developing any road project which interacts with road users,
and should be monitored regularly for new mod- in which a qualified and independent examiner
els and techniques which may have application reports on the projects accident potential and
to their design challenges. safety performance. The audit may be conduct-
ed at the project's:
The techniques of cost-effectiveness analysis  Feasibility stage;
are well established and are applied for a vari-  Draft design stage;
ety of purposes in transportation and highway  Detailed design stage;
design agencies. A number of alternative  Pre-opening stage; and
approaches are available but, most commonly,  On existing roads.

the tools used by transportation agencies are

built on life-cycle costing models and use pres- The earlier a road is audited within the design
ent worth or annualised cost techniques as their and development process, the better.
underlying analysis methodology. All these
approaches are built on fundamental assump- The subject is dealt with more fully in Chapter
tions regarding parameters such as discount 2.5 of this document, and particularly in Volume
Geometric Design Guide

rates and unit crash costs. In order to enforce 6 of the South African Road Safety Manual.
consistent and comparable results across the
road authority, these basic assumptions are 8.2 ROADSIDE HAZARDS AND CLEAR
usually set as a matter of policy and represent a ZONE CONCEPT
"given" for designers to use in their analyses.
8.2.1 Overview
8.1.6 Road safety audits
Research has shown that in 50 per cent of all
First developed in the United Kingdom, Australia run-off-the-road accidents the vehicle leaves the
and New Zealand, this process, which specifi- road in a skidding manner. Roadside hazards

8-6
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Geometric Design Guide
Figure 8.1: Roadside safety analysis

can significantly increase the severity of crash-  Supports and poles (for lighting, utilities,
es and it is necessary to manage roadside haz- signage;
ards in such a manner as to decrease the sever-  Drainage structures such as culverts,
ity of these crashes. Figure 8.1 illustrates this drains, drop inlets;

process.
 Bridge abutments/piers;
 Side slopes such as embankments;
 Ends of traffic barriers, bridge railings;
Common existing roadside hazards include:
 Incorrectly positioned traffic barriers, i.e.
 Trees;
<3 metres off the roadway;

8-7
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
  Obsolete roadside furniture; The concept originated in the United States in
 SOS call boxes; and the early 1960's and has progressively been
 Fire hydrants refined and updated. The clear zone width
varies between 4.0 and 10 metres with the
Accidents involving roadside objects are signifi- upper end of the scale being more appropriate
cant for both the urban and rural road environ- for high-speed National Roads. More recent
ments. In South Africa, approximately 25 per studies have found that the first 4,0 - 5,0 metres
cent of all accidents involve vehicles running off provide most of the potential benefit from clear
the road. In 1996 alone, the accident costs zones.
related to fixed object accidents amounted to
R3,5 billion (1997 Rand). 8.2.2 Elements of the clear zone

It is not feasible to provide sufficient width adja-

The clear zone falls within an area called the
cent to the carriageway that will allow all errant
recovery zone. The recovery zone is the total
vehicles to recover. Therefore it is necessary to
unobstructed traversable area available along
reach a compromise or level of risk manage-
the edge of the road and, by convention, it is
ment. The most widely accepted form of risk
measured from the edge of the closest travel
management for roadside hazards is the 'clear
lane. The recovery zone may have recoverable
zone concept'. The clear zone is the horizontal
slopes, non-recoverable slopes and a clear run-
width (measured from the edge of the traffic
lane) that is kept free from hazards to allow an out area.

errant vehicle to recover. The clear zone is a

compromise between the recovery area for Figure 8.2 illustrates the clear zone concept in
every errant vehicle, the cost of providing that the context of the roadside recovery zone.
area and the probability of an errant vehicle
encountering a hazard. The clear zone should Recoverable slopes are those on which a driver
be kept free from non-frangible hazards where may, to a greater or lesser extent, retain or
economically possible; alternatively, hazards regain control of a vehicle. A non-recoverable
within the clear zone should be protected. The
slope may be traversable, but a vehicle will con-
clear zone width is dependent on:
tinue to the bottom. A clear run-out area is locat-
Geometric Design Guide

 Speed;
ed at the toe of a non-recoverable slope, and is
 Traffic volumes;
available for safe use by an errant vehicle.
 Side slopes; and
 Horizontal geometry. There is also provision for a smooth transition

It should be noted that the clear zone width is between slopes to allow for the safe passage of
not a magical number and, where possible, haz- vehicles.
ards beyond the desirable clear zone should be
minimized. The clear zone is the total, fixed-object-free area
available to the errant vehicle. The design
Clear zone widths vary throughout the world domain for the clear zone width has been found
depending on land availability and design policy. to depend on traffic volume and speed, road

8-8
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Figure 8.2: Roadside recovery zone

geometry, embankment height, side slope and 80 per cent of the vehicles leaving a roadway
environmental conditions such as rain, snow, out of control to recover .."
ice, and fog. The wider the clear zone, the less
the frequency and severity of collisions with The last portion of this statement requires

fixed objects. However, there is a point beyond emphasis. Provision of the recommended clear

which any further expenditure to move or pro- zone does not guarantee that vehicles will not

tect the fixed objects is not warranted because encroach further than the recommended clear

the marginal risk reduction is too small. zone distance. Quite the contrary, the clear
zone principle embodies the explicit fact that

8.2.3 Factors influencing the clear zone some portion of the vehicles that encroach will

design domain go beyond the clear zone itself.

When originally introduced, the clear zone con- Steeper embankment slopes tend to increase
cept dictated a single value of 9 metres and was vehicle encroachment distances. Conversely,
based on limited research. The concept was on low-volume or low-speed facilities, the 9,0 m
formally introduced in the 1974 version of the distance was found to be excessive and could Geometric Design Guide
AASHTO report entitled Highway Design and seldom be justified. As a result, as the concept
Operational Practices Related to Highway evolved, design practice moved to a variable
Safety where the authors noted: clear zone distance definition and a better
understanding of the wide range of factors that
" for adequate safety, it is desirable to provide influence the limits of its design domain was
an unencumbered roadside recovery area that gained.
is as wide as practical on a specific highway
section. Studies have indicated that on high- The approach set out in paragraph 8.2.4 below,
speed highways, a width of 9 metres or more and borrowed from Canadian practice reflects
from the edge of the travelled way permits about the influence of:

8-9
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 • Design speed; For sections of road with horizontal curvature,
• Traffic volumes; these distances should be increased on the out-
• The presence of cut or fill slopes; side of curves by a factor that depends on the
• The steepness of slopes; and operating speed and the radius of the curve.
• Horizontal curve adjustments.
Figure 8.3 provides guidelines on adjustment
factors for clear zones on the outside of curves.
Designers should, however, recognize the limi-
tations of the figures presented below. AASHTO
8.2.5 Best practices in respect of roadside
provides a caution to designers on the issue:
vegetation
" ..the numbers obtained from these curves
represent a reasonable measure of the degree Single-vehicle collisions with trees account for a
of safety suggested for a particular roadside; but sizeable proportion of all fixed object collisions.
they are neither absolute nor precise. In some Unlike typical roadside hardware, with the
cases, it is reasonable to leave a fixed object exception of landscaping, trees are not a design
within the clear zone; in other instances, an element over which the designers have direct
object beyond the clear zone distance may control. While policies and approaches vary by

require removal or shielding. Use of an appro- agency, a number of best practices are present-

priate clear zone distance amounts to a com- ed here to assist the designer in dealing with

promise between safety and construction this complex and important issue.

costs."
Depending on their size, trees within the clear

8.2.4 Determining width of clear zone zone constitute a serious hazard. Generally, a
tree with a trunk diameter greater than 150 mm
is considered a fixed object.
Table 8.2 provides an indication of the appropri-
ate width of a clear zone on a straight section of
road, measured in metres from the edge of the When trees or shrubs with multiple trunks, or

lane, according to design speed, traffic volumes groups of small trees are close together,

and cut or fill slope values. The values in Table because of their combined cross-sectional area,
they may be considered as having the effect of
Geometric Design Guide

8.2 are taken from the 1996 AASHTO Roadside

Design Guide, and suggest only the approxi- a single tree

mate centre of a range to be considered and not

a precise distance, since, in making their choice, Typically, large trees should be removed from
designers should also consider specific site con- within the selected clear zone for new construc-
ditions. tion and reconstruction projects. Segments of
a highway can be analysed to identify groups of
Where side slopes are steeper than 1 : 4 (i.e. trees or individual trees that are candidates for
non-trafficable) designers should give consider- removal or shielding.
ation to the provision of a protection barrier.

8-10
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
While tree removal generally generates some cle/tree collision risk although some isolated
public resistance, it will reduce the severity of trees may be candidates for removal if they are
Geometric Design Guide
any crashes. noticeably close to the roadway. If a tree or
group of trees is in a vulnerable location but
Tree removal often has adverse environmental cannot be removed, traffic barriers can be used
impacts. It is important that this measure only to shield them.
be used when it is the only solution. For exam-
ple, slopes of 1:3 or flatter may be traversable Maintenance of the roadside plays an important
but a vehicle on a 1:3 slope will usually reach role in helping to control vegetation and tree
the bottom. If there are numerous trees at the problems by mowing within the clear zone and
toe of the slope, the removal of isolated trees on eliminating seedlings before they create a haz-
the slope will not significantly reduce the vehi- ard.

8-11
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Figure 8.3: Adjustment for clear zones on curves

8.3 SIGN AND OTHER SUPPORTS poles located on the outside of horizontal curves
and adjacent to pavements with low skid resist-
8.3.1 Basis for Design ance pavements is greater than at other sites.

Although the objective of roadside design is to These poles can be treated in a number of
provide an adequate clear zone to allow errant ways, namely:
vehicles to recover without a crash, this is not • By relocating them to a safer location
always possible. For various reasons, including (this can include moving a lighting pole
traffic operation, certain obstacles may have to to the inside of a horizontal curve rather

remain within the clear zone. than on the outside)

These obstacles include:

• Removal of some of the poles by:
Increasing the pole spacing;
• Traffic signposts;
The combining of a number of
• Utility poles;
utilities or signs per pole; or
• Roadway illumination features; and
Geometric Design Guide

Installing underground cables;

• Structures, including headwalls of
drainage structures.
• Shielding the utility poles with an appro-
priate traffic barrier system and provi-
sion of a proper end-treatment;
Collisions with sign and lighting supports consti-
• If appropriate, installation of a break
tute a significant portion of all vehicle crashes
away device;
and thus merit serious attention. The roadside
• Providing a high skid resistance surfac-
hazard danger associated with utility and sign- ing on curves; and
post poles increases with an increase in traffic • Attaching delineators to the device to
flow, pole density (poles per km of road) and the increase its visibility if no other measure
offset from the edge of the road. The hazard of can be implemented.

8-12
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
Figure 8.1 illustrates the proposed methodology. injured by the yielding support(s). It is therefore
important that the designer should consider the
8.3.2 Breakaway supports relative risks related to each location before a
design is selected.
Definition
The term "breakaway support", developed in the A breakaway support is designed for loading in
late 1960's, refers to all types of signs, lumi- shear and normally for impact at bumper height
naires and traffic signal supports that are safely (typically 500 mm above ground level). It is crit-
displaced under vehicle impact, whether the ical that the support be properly installed as to
release mechanism is a slip plane, plastic hinge, ensure that loading takes place at the correct
fracture element or a combination of these. height. Loading above the design height may
cause the breakaway device to fail to activate
The AASHTO Standard Specifications for because the bending moment in the breakaway
Structural Supports for Highway Signs, support may be sufficient to keep the support in
Luminaires and Traffic Signals specifies that all place. Incorrect loading can also take place
supports located in the clear zone widths of when the support is installed close to ditches or
high-speed facilities should be equipped with a steep slopes, causing a vehicle to become air-
breakaway device unless they are protected borne and hit the support at the wrong position.
with a suitable traffic barrier system. In the case
of urban or low speed facilities, the use of break- The soil type of the breakaway system is impor-
away devices is not advisable. The AASHTO tant as it may also affect the activation of the
Specifications seem to be inadequate as an mechanism. In the case of fracture-type sup-
occupant can sustain serious injuries when ports such as high carbon U-channel posts, tele-
striking the car interior during a vehicle impact at scoping tubes and wood supports, the supports
40 km/h with a non-yielding object. The reason may slip through saturated or loose soil during
for this guideline, however, is that there is a impact, absorbing energy and changing the
probability of cyclists and pedestrians being breakaway mechanism.

Geometric Design Guide

Figure 8.4: Breakaway supports

8-13
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 If a sign support is installed at a depth less than Luminaires and Traffic Signals, should be used
1 metre, it will pull out of the soil during impact. to determine whether a sign support conforms
Installations with anchor plates or those to the criteria for a breakaway support.
installed deeper than 1 m are particularly sensi-
The broad criteria which breakaway supports
tive to the foundation conditions. For small sign
should meet include:
supports using base-bending or yielding mecha-
 Dynamic performance criteria, i.e.
nisms, the performance of the supports in strong
implicit velocity breakaway thresholds;
soils is more critical.
 Maximum remaining stub height of
100mm;
The maintenance requirements are critical in the  The need for the vehicle to remain
selection of a particular breakaway device. The upright during and after the collision;
following maintenance requirements should be and
considered:  No significant deformation of the vehicle
or intrusion into the passenger compart-
ment during or after impact.
(a) The availability of breakaway devices
will influence the costs associated with installa-
Non- breakaway sign supports
tion and maintenance or replacement after
impact. An installation that can be reused can The first requirement for sign supports is the
be more cost-effective than mechanisms that need to structurally support the devices that are
have to be replaced. mounted upon them. Signs and other devices
should be carefully placed in order to minimize
(b) The durability of a support is important the hazard that they can represent to motorists.
as it will determine the life span of a support that The following practices should be borne in mind
is not struck as compared to that of a non-break- by designers when developing signing plans for
away support. their projects:

(c) A breakaway device yields when hit if it (a) Sign supports should not be placed in
is properly installed and maintained. The mech- drainage ditches, where erosion might affect the
anism should then be replaced or repaired. proper operation of breakaway supports.
Geometric Design Guide

Consequently, the availability of material, main-

(b) Wherever possible, signs should be
tenance personnel and availability of personnel
placed behind existing roadside barriers
after an impact for each breakaway design
(beyond the deflection distance), on existing
should influence the selection thereof.
structures, or in non-accessible areas. If this
cannot be achieved, then breakaway supports
Acceptance criteria for breakaway supports should be used.

(c) Only when the use of breakaway sup-

The AASHTO guide, Standard Specification for
ports is not practicable should a traffic barrier or
Structural Support for Highway Signs,
crash cushion be used to shield sign supports.

8-14
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
8.3.3 Design and Location Criteria for Sign The design requirements for breakaway support
Supports systems for roadside signs are documented in a
number of publications. The South African
Roadway signs fall into three primary classes: Road Safety Manual should be used as the
overhead signs, large roadside signs, and small basis for the design of these.
roadside signs. Small road side signs

Overhead Signs Small roadside signs are supported on one or

more posts and have a sign panel area of less
Since overhead signs, including cantilevered than 5,0 square metres. Although not perceived
signs, require massive support systems that as significant obstacles, small signs can cause
cannot be made breakaway, they should be serious damage to impacting automobiles, and
installed on or relocated to nearby overpasses wooden posts should be used as far as possi-
or other structures, where possible. ble.

All overhead sign supports located within the The bottom of the sign panel should be a mini-
clear zone should be shielded with a crashwor- mum 2100 mm above ground and the top of the
thy barrier. In such instances, the sign gantry panel should be a minimum 2700 mm above
should be located beyond the design deflection ground to minimize the possibility of the sign
distance of the barrier. panel and post rotating on impact and striking
the windshield of a vehicle.
Large Roadside Signs
The requirements for breakaway support sys-
tems for roadside signs are documented in a
Large roadside signs are generally greater than
number of publications. The South African
5,0 square metres in area. Typically, they have
Road Safety Manual should be used as the
two or more supports that are breakaway.
basis for design.

The hinge for breakaway supports on large Consideration to various factors should be given
roadside signs should be at least 2100 mm when selecting, designing and locating break- Geometric Design Guide
above ground, so that the likelihood of the sign away and other supports. These include:
or upper section of the support penetrating the  Road environment : urban or rural;
windshield of an impacting vehicle is minimized.  Terrain where device is installed;
The required impact performance is shown in  Proximity to drainage ditches or struc-
tures;
Figure 8.4.
 Soil type used as a base for the break-
away support;
No supplementary signs should be attached
 Maintenance requirements of the sup-
below the hinges if their placement is likely to
port (i.e., the simplicity of maintenance,
interfere with the breakaway action of the sup- availability of material and the durability
port post or if the supplementary sign is likely to of the support); and
strike the windscreen of an impacting vehicle.  Expected impact frequency.

8-15
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 8.3.4 Design approach for lighting sup- barrier and if it is within the design deflection
ports distance of the barrier, it should be either a
breakaway design, or the barrier should be
Lighting supports should be of the frangible
strengthened locally to minimize its deflection.
base, slip base or frangible coupling type. They
are designed to release in shear when hit at a
Higher mounting heights can reduce the number
typical bumper height of about 500 mm.
of lights needed on a facility. High mast lighting
- which requires far fewer supports located
As long as the side slopes between the roadway
much further from the roadway - can be benefi-
and the luminaire support are 6:1 or flatter, vehi- cial. While consideration of this approach is rec-
cles should strike the support appropriately, and ommended to designers, the massive nature of
breakaway action can be assured. these high mast structures requires analysis
and planning in the design and placement of the
Superelevation, side slope, rounding and vehi- high mast supports.
cle departure angle and speed will influence the
striking height of a typical bumper. Designers 8.4 TRAFFIC SAFETY BARRIERS

should consider this fact when developing illu-

8.4.1 Overview
mination plans for their projects.

Traffic safety barriers are systems utilized to

As a general rule, a lighting support will fall near shield road users from potential hazards along-
the line of the path of an impacting vehicle. side the travelled way and should be able to
Designers should be aware that these falling redirect or contain:
poles represent a threat to bystanders such as  An errant vehicle without imposing intol-

pedestrians, bicyclists and uninvolved motorists. erable vehicle occupant forces;

 Vehicles in range of sizes, weights and
designs; or
Poles with breakaway features should not  An errant vehicle over a range of impact
exceed 17 m in height - the current maximum speeds and impact angles.
height of accepted hardware.
Traffic barriers are obstacles on the roadside
Geometric Design Guide

and vehicles striking barriers can cause occu-

The mass of a breakaway lighting support
pant injury and/or vehicle damage. A traffic bar-
should not exceed 450 kg.
rier should be installed only if it is likely to
reduce the severity of potential collisions. It is
Foundations for lighting supports should be therefore of the utmost importance that, in
designed with consideration being given to the selection of the traffic barrier, due cognisance
surrounding soil conditions that could influence be taken of the characteristics of the particular
the effectiveness of the breakaway mechanism. barrier system. Barrier systems differ not only in
purpose but also in terms of deflection and redi-
When a lighting support is located near a traffic recting properties.

8-16
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
Traffic barriers are either classified as being Although this approach can be used, there are
impact attenuation devices or longitudinal barri- often instances where the distinction between
ers. the two conditions is not immediately obvious.
The purpose of an impact attenuation device is In addition, this approach does not allow for
to cause a vehicle to decelerate and come to a consideration of the cost-effectiveness of treat-
halt. A longitudinal traffic barrier redirects a ment or non-treatment.
vehicle parallel to the roadway.
In recent years, techniques have been devel-
oped which allow warrants for barrier installation
Figure 8.5 shows a functional classification of
to be established on the basis of a benefit cost
traffic barriers.
analysis in which such factors as design speed,
traffic volume, installation and maintenance
8.4.2 Determining Need for Safety
costs, and collision costs are taken into consid-
Barriers
eration.

Barriers are installed on the basis of warrant

Typically, such an approach is used to evaluate
analysis. Traditionally, these warrants have
three options:
been based on a subjective analysis of certain  The removal or alteration of the area of

Geometric Design Guide

Figure 8.5: Classification of traffic barriers

roadside elements or conditions within the clear concern so that it no longer requires
zone. If the consequences of a vehicle running shielding;
off the road and striking a barrier are believed to  The installation of an appropriate barri-
be less serious than the consequences if no er; or

barrier existed, the barrier is considered war-  Leaving the area of concern unshielded
(usually only considered on low-volume
ranted.
and/or low-speed facilities).

8-17
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Once a barrier is found to be necessary for a a fixed object within the clear zone that is con-
embankment, it should be provided over the sidered to be a hazard and cannot be removed,
entire length of the embankment and not simply relocated, made breakaway, or adequately
terminated when the embankment height shielded by a longitudinal barrier.
becomes less than the warranted height.
In considering the use of traffic barriers, design-
Barrier warrants for roadside obstacles are ers should note that, even when these are prop-
based on their location within the clear zone and erly designed and constructed, they might not
are a function of the nature of the obstacle, its protect errant vehicles and their occupants com-
distance from the travelled portion of the road- pletely. After installation of these, the severity of
way and the likelihood that it will be hit by an collisions generally decreases but, as the num-
errant vehicle. ber of installations increases, the frequency of
minor collisions may also increase. For this rea-
Conventional criteria used for embankments
son, where cost-effective, the designer should
and roadside hazards are not usually applicable
make every effort to design without traffic barri-
to the pedestrian/bicyclist case, and these are
ers. This can be done by clearing the roadside
usually resolved through a careful individual
of obstacles, flattening embankment slopes and
evaluation of each potential project.
introducing greater median separation where
possible. It should be noted, however, that,
As with roadside barriers, warrants for median
whilst a particular barrier system is chosen
barriers have been established on the basis that
based on the containment level required, regu-
a barrier should be installed only if the conse-
lar monitoring is essential to allow the system to
quences of striking the barrier are less severe
be replaced by a more adequate one if experi-
than the consequences that would result if no
ence indicates the need for this.
barrier existed. The primary purpose of a medi-
an barrier is to prevent an errant vehicle from
8.4.3 Longitudinal roadside barriers
crossing a median on a divided highway and
encountering oncoming traffic. As such, the
Classification and performance characteristics
development of median barrier warrants has
Geometric Design Guide

been based on an evaluation of median

crossover collisions and related research stud- Figure 8.6 shows the classification of longitudi-

ies. In determining the need for barriers on nal barriers based on their deflection character-

medians, median width and average daily traffic istics. It should be noted that the deflection

volumes are the basic factors generally used in characteristics of a barrier system are not an

the analysis. However the incidence of illegal indication of its effectiveness or safety.

cross-median movements may also justify the

use of median barriers. Misconceptions exist regarding the advantages
of the different longitudinal barrier types. Some
Warrants for implementing impact attenuation engineers firmly believe that one system is bet-
divides (crash cushions) are based on shielding ter than another based on its deflection charac-

8-18
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Figure 8.6: Classification of longitudinal barriers

teristics. The deflection characteristics of a par- 2) Semi-rigid systems, providing reduced

ticular system are not a measure of its effective- lateral barrier deflections, but higher vehicle
ness. The mechanisms by which a vehicle is deceleration rates. These barrier systems have
restrained after impacting a traffic barrier differ application in areas where lateral restrictions
completely depending on the type of barrier exist and where anticipated deflections have to
selected. The reaction of a vehicle on impact be limited. They usually consist of a strong
with different types of barriers is thus also differ- post-and-beam system and have design deflec-
ent. tions ranging from 0,5 to 1,7 metres.
3) Rigid systems, usually taking the form
In accomplishing their task of guiding and redi- of a continuous concrete barrier. These tech-
recting impinging vehicles, a longitudinal barrier nologies result in no lateral deflection, but
should balance the need to prevent penetration impose the highest vehicle deceleration rates.
of the barrier with the need to protect the occu- They are usually applied in areas where there is
pants of the vehicle. Various barrier technolo- very little room for deflection or where the penal-
gies achieve this in various ways and can be ty for penetrating the barrier is very high.
grouped into three distinct types: Numerous shapes are available, including a
1) Flexible systems, resulting in large lat- high version for use where there is a high per-
Geometric Design Guide
eral barrier deflections, but the lowest vehicle centage of trucks.
deceleration rates. Such systems have applica-
tion in places where a substantial area behind Designers should familiarize themselves with,
the barrier is free of obstructions and/or other and design to, the specific performance charac-
hazards within the zone of anticipated lateral teristics of their selected or candidate technolo-
deflection. These barriers usually consist of a gies.
weak post-and-beam system, and their design
deflections are typically in the range of 3,2 Selection guidelines
metres to 3,7 metres.but can be as low as1,7
metres. Roadside barriers may be subjected to a wide

8-19
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 range of impacts by errant vehicles and provide The requirements of NHCRP Report 350 should
a wide range of protection to the occupants of be regarded as the minimum.
such vehicles. It is therefore necessary to
determine the level of protection that they will Performance capability
provide.

The "design conditions" for a particular barrier

The procedures and criteria for assessing the need to be assessed carefully because areas
safety performance of traffic barriers and other with poor geometrics, high traffic volumes, high
features have been standardized in the USA speeds and a large proportion of heavy vehicles
through the publication of various National Co- might not be consistent with the "conditions"
operative Highway Research Program assumed when the barrier had been tested.
(NCHRP) Reports. The current test battery is Such sites might require barriers with a higher
described in NCHRP Report 350 than normal performance level.
"Recommended Procedures for the Safety
Evaluation Performance of Highway Features"
Site conditions
(and includes various test levels defined by the
size of the test (design) vehicle, impact speed
Site conditions play a major role in the selection
and angle). This provides the designer with the
of appropriate barriers. The slope approaching
opportunity to match test conditions with the
a flexible barrier should, for example, not
anticipated operational conditions on the road.
exceed 10 per cent and rigid barriers should not
be used where the expected impact angle is
In selecting an appropriate traffic barrier it is
large. Narrow fill sections could result in condi-
essential that designers have a good under-
tions where post spacing and post support might
standing of the protection level expected from
be inadequate to allow them to perform as
the barrier and they should note that, if they
intended.
choose a particular system that is inadequate,
they might make themselves, or their agency,
A number of site-specific aspects will have a
liable for damages.
major influence on the selection of a particular
Geometric Design Guide

type of barrier to meet the performance require-

The following factors should therefore be seri- ments at that location. These aspects include:
ously considered before a particular barrier is  Compatibility.
selected: All barriers are subject to damage and
 Performance capability; require intermittent maintenance.
 Site conditions; Keeping the number of different barrier
o Compatibility; types to a minimum therefore simplifies
o Life cycle costs; maintenance. Special barrier designs
o Maintenance; should only be considered when site or
o Aesthetics; and operational conditions cannot be satis-
o Field experience. fied with the standard barrier.

8-20
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Life cycle costs. Warrants for use
It is prudent to realize that any barrier
system accrues costs throughout its Roadside hazards that warrant shielding by bar-
life. High initial costs could mean low riers include embankments and roadside obsta-
maintenance costs, whilst low initial cles. Warrants for the use of barriers on
costs could mean higher maintenance embankments generally use embankment
costs. In addition, expected accident
height and side slope as the parameters in the
costs should be considered in the cal-
analysis and essentially compare the collision
culation of life cycle costs.
severity of hitting a barrier with the severity of
 Maintenance.
going down the embankment. Figure 8.7,
Most systems require very little routine
maintenance. When the barrier has adapted from Australian guidelines, provides
been involved in a crash, the subse- guidance for the installation of such barriers on
quent rehabilitation costs may be signif- embankments.
icant, to the point of being excessive in
the case of a high accident location. It
However such warrant procedures are regarded
should be noted that only material
as less than adequate because they do not take
specifically designed for that particular
into account the probability of a crash occurring
system should be used for mainte-
nance, and the tendency to "mix and against the barrier or the cost of installing a bar-
match" should be avoided. rier versus leaving the slope unprotected. The
 Aesthetics. development of cost analysis techniques pro-
It is important to realize that all traffic vides the designer with an approach to
barriers are visual obstructions. Should analysing the need for roadside embankment
this become a particular concern it is protection barriers. In South Africa, however,
necessary to ensure that alternative
there is a lack of reliable data to carry out such
systems that may be considered are
analyses and it is necessary for the designer to
able to meet the performance require-
make site-specific analyses, using Figure 8.7 as
ments. Aesthetics should, under no cir-
cumstances, be given preference a guide.
before safety considerations.
 Field experience. The significance of this figure is that it provides
Geometric Design Guide
Site personnel's' experience of the per- a range of values of fill slope for which, at cer-
formance, cost and maintenance tain heights of fill, a barrier may be more or less
requirements of installed systems as hazardous than the embankment it protects.
well as the traffic police services' expe-
For example, at a fill height of 6 metres, a fill
rience of the performance of particular
slope steeper than 1:3 would warrant the use of
barrier systems under impact condi-
a barrier while a fill slope flatter than 1:4 would
tions, should not be under-estimated by
the designer. Early identification of not require protection. On the intervening
potential problems can ensure that slopes, the designer should use his or her dis-
future installations operate effectively. cretion in determining the need for a barrier.

8-21
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Figure 8.7: Warrants for use of roadside barriers

In respect of roadside obstacles that need pro- contact;

tection from errant vehicles (or vice versa) war-  Shielding businesses or residences
rants for shielding or otherwise can be devel- near the right of way in locations where
oped using a quantitative cost-effective analy- there is a history of run-off-the road
sis, which takes the characteristics of the obsta- crashes; or
cle and its likelihood of being hit into account.  Separating pedestrians and/or cyclists
However, once again the designer must exam- from vehicle flows in circumstances
ine each site specifically to determine the where high-speed vehicle intrusions
necessity or otherwise for shielding. Table 8.3 onto boulevards or sidewalk areas
provides an overview of the types of non-tra- might occur.
Geometric Design Guide

versable terrain and fixed objects that are nor-

In all these cases, conventional criteria will not
mally considered for shielding.
serve to provide warrants for barriers, and the
In some situations, a measure of physical pro- designer should be aware of the needs and cir-
tection may be required for pedestrians or bicy- cumstances of the individual situation when
clists using, or in close proximity to, a major deciding on appropriate action.
street or highway. Examples of such cases
could include; Longitudinal barrier placement
 A barrier adjacent to a school boundary
or property to minimize potential vehicle A typical longitudinal roadside barrier installa-

8-22
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
tion, with its associated elements for a two-lane, way;
two-way road, is illustrated in Figure 8.8. The  Rail deflection distance;

length of need as illustrated in this figure is illus-  Terrain effects;

trated in more detail in Figure 8.10.

 Flare rate; and
 Length of need.

The factors to be considered in barrier installa- Barriers should ideally be set as far away from
tion are the following: the travelled way as possible. This ensures
 Offset of the barrier from the travelled that:

Geometric Design Guide

Figure 8.8: Roadside barrier elements

8-23
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Barriers should ideally be set as far away from Barrier deflection
the travelled way as possible. This ensures
that: The expected deflection of a barrier should not
• There is more recovery area to regain exceed the available space between rail and the
control of the vehicle; object being shielded. If the available space
• There is better sight distance;
between the rail and the obstacle is not ade-
• Less barrier is required to shield the
quate for non-rigid barrier systems then the bar-
hazard; and
rier can be stiffened in advance of, and along-
• Adverse driver reaction to the barrier is
reduced. side, the fixed object. This can be achieved
through reducing the post spacing, increasing

However placing the barrier away from the road- post sizes or increasing the rail stiffness by nest-

way and closer to the hazard may have disad- ing rail elements. However care should be exer-

vantages. These are: cised when considering this step since the total

• The possible impact angle increases, system characteristics might be altered.

leading to higher risk of the vehicle pen-
etrating the rail as well as increased col-
Other areas of concern include the possibility of
lision severity. The South African Road
Safety Manual provides a detailed dis- rolling over when vehicles with a high centre of
cussion on this issue. gravity impact a barrier or of vehicles dropping
• The roadside area in front of the barrier over the edge when a barrier, positioned too
has to be traversable and as flat as pos- close to the edge, deflects on impact.
sible.
Geometric Design Guide

Recommended offset distances measured from A minimum distance of 600 mm behind flexible
the edge of the travelled way are shown in Table guardrails to the edge of an embankment would
8.4. Barriers are typically placed at a distance generally provide enough resistance to lateral
of 0,3 metres beyond the edge of the usable movement of the posts to resist the rail tension.
shoulder so that the greater of the distance in
Table 8.4 or the width of the shoulder plus 0,3
metres should be used.

8-24
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
Terrain effects vehicle trajectory to stabilize. Installation of
guardrails on slopes steeper than 1:6 is not rec-
Roadside features such as kerbs and drainage ommended because inadequate lateral support
inlets affect the bumper height and suspension for the guardrail posts would result. If this loca-
and may cause errant vehicles to snag or vault tion is unavoidable, consideration should be
the barrier. given to deeper postholes.

Kerbs should preferably be sited behind the Flare rate

guardrail face. Barrier offsets less than 230 mm
behind the kerb would still be acceptable. The A barrier flare may be used to increase the bar-
height of the rail should be carefully considered rier offset from the edge of the roadway. This is
to limit the possibility of the bumper or a wheel normally used to position the barrier terminal
under-riding the rail. This may be achieved by further from the roadway, to adjust the existing
setting the rail height relative to the road surface roadside features, to reduce the total length of
in front of the kerb. rail and to reduce driver reaction to the close
proximity of the barrier rail next to the road.
Slopes
Flared barriers can, however, also lead to
Roadside barriers perform best when installed increased impact angles causing higher impact
on slopes of 1:10 or flatter. Slope changes may severity, as well as to larger rebound angles
cause vehicles to impact higher on the barrier causing greater conflicts with other vehicles.
than normal, increasing the possibility of vault-
ing. Should barriers be installed beyond a slope The maximum recommended flare rates are
change, they should be set back at least 3,5 shown in Table 8.5. Flatter rates may be used
metres from the slope break line to allow the particularly where extensive grading would be

Geometric Design Guide

8-25
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Figure 8.9: Length of need for adjacent traffic

Figure 8.10: Length of need for opposing traffic

required to provide a 1:10 approach slope to the Run-out length is the theoretical distance
barrier. required for a vehicle leaving the roadway to
come to a stop prior to impacting a hazard. The
Length of need
design of a traffic barrier requires provision to be

The variables to be considered in the design made for sufficient length to restrict such a vehi-

process of barriers are shown in Figure 8.9 for cle from reaching the hazard. The recommend-

the approach side towards a hazard and in ed run-out lengths are shown in Table 8.6.

Figure 8.10 for the trailing side beyond the haz-

ard, providing for the shielding of the hazard for The run-out length is measured along the edge

opposing traffic. of the road. A control line is established

Geometric Design Guide

8-26
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
between the end of the run-out length and the median barriers are generally justified. These
far side of the hazard to be shielded. The length figures presuppose that the particular section of
of need for a standard barrier would then be the roadway under consideration does not suffer
length between the near side of the hazard and from an adverse cross-median collision history
the position where the barrier intersects the con- and that unauthorized cross-median U-turns do
trol line. If the barrier is designed for a continu- not take place.
ous hazard such as a river or a critical fill
embankment, then the control line would be Once the need for a median barrier is estab-
between the end of the run-out length and the lished, the designer should consider several fac-
end of the desirable clear zone. The same prin- tors in developing the barrier layout. These
ciple is adopted to determine the length of need include:
for opposing traffic.  Terrain effects;
 Flare rate of the barrier;

The standard guardrail ends at the end of the

 Treatment of rigid objects in the median;
and
length of need. An acceptable end-treatment
 Openings in the median as a result of
should be added to this length to determine the
underpasses.
total length of installation.

Terrain effects
An application of the length of need principles to
practical design problems is given in Volume 6 For a median barrier to be effective, it is essen-
of the South Africa Road Safety Manual. tial that, at the time of impact, the vehicle has all
its wheels on the ground and that its suspension
8.4.4 Median barriers system is neither compressed nor extended.
Kerbs and sloped medians are of particular con-
Most of the principles with respect to longitudi- cern, since a vehicle, which traverses one of
nal barriers also apply to median barriers. these features prior to impact, may go over or
Regarding warrants for their use, median barri- under the barrier or snag on its support posts.
ers should only be installed if the consequences
that would result if they did not exist are more Kerbs offer no safety benefits on high-speed
Geometric Design Guide
severe than the consequences of striking them. roads and are not recommended where median
However, excessive incidence of illegal cross- barriers are present.
median movements might justify the use of
median barriers. Medians should be relatively flat (slopes of 1:10
or less) and free of rigid objects. Where this is
For median widths of 15 metres or greater, not the case, carefully considered placement of
median barriers are generally not required, the median barrier is needed. AASHTO notes
whilst, for median widths of 10 metres and less three conditions where specific guidelines for
with ADT's in excess of 30 000 vpd, and 8 median barrier placement should be followed:
metres and less with ADTs below 30 000 vpd,

8-27
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
  In depressed medians or medians with a roadside barriers should be used near the
ditch section the slopes and ditch sec- shoulder adjacent to each of the travelled ways.
tion should first be checked to determine
whether a roadside barrier is warranted. Flare rates
If both slopes require shielding, a road-
side barrier should be placed near the If a median barrier has to be flared at a rigid
shoulder on each side of the median. If
object in the median, the flare rates for roadside
only one slope requires shielding, a
barriers should be used for the median barrier
median barrier should be placed near
flare as well.
the shoulder of the adjacent travelled
way.
Rigid objects

 If neither slope requires shielding but

both are steeper than 1:10, a median A special case may result in circumstances
barrier should be placed on the side with where a median barrier is not warranted but
the steeper slope, when warranted. where a rigid object warrants shielding. Typical
examples are bridge piers, overhead sign sup-
 If both slopes are relatively flat, then a
port structures, and high mast lighting installa-
median barrier may be placed at or near
tions. If shielding is necessary for one direction
the centre of the median if vehicle over-
ride is not likely. of travel only, or if the object is in a depressed
median and shielding from either or both direc-

For stepped medians that separate travelled tions of travel is necessary, the criteria for road-

ways with significant differences in elevation, a side barriers should be used.

median barrier should be placed near the shoul-

der adjacent to each travelled way if the If shielding for both directions of travel is neces-
embankment slope is steeper than 1:10. If the sary and if the median side slopes are steeper
cross-slope is flatter than 1:10, a barrier could than 1:10 the designer may investigate the pos-
be placed at or near the centre of the median. sibility of a crash cushion (or an earth berm) to
shield the object. A second possibility involves
Placement criteria are not clearly defined for the use of semi-rigid barriers with crash cush-
Geometric Design Guide

raised medians or median berms. Research ions or earth berms to shield the barrier ends.
suggests that the cross section of a median
berm itself, if high and wide enough, can redi- Median openings as a result of underpasses
rect vehicles impacting at relatively shallow
angles. In certain instances, the cost implications of pro-
viding underpasses have the result that an
As a general rule, if the cross section is inade- opening in the median occurs. In such
quate for redirecting errant vehicles, a semi-rigid instances the use of transverse barriers (or con-
barrier should be placed at the apex of the crete balustrades) shielded by impact attenua-
cross-section. If the slopes are not traversable, tion devices should be considered.

8-28
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
End treatments Such a terminal must not spear, vault, or roll a
vehicle in either head-on or angled hits.
Traffic barriers (both roadside and median 2. Barrier end treatments should gradually
types) themselves represent fixed objects. stop or redirect an impacting vehicle when a
Impact with their untreated terminal sections barrier is hit end on. The end treatment should
can have severe consequences, primarily also be capable of redirecting a vehicle impact-
because of the very high deceleration rates ing the side of the terminal.
experienced by vehicle occupant under such cir- 3. The end treatment should have the
cumstances, but also often because penetration same redirectional characteristics as the barrier
of the passenger compartment by the barrier to which it is attached for impacts at or near the
itself is a distinct possibility. There are a number end of the terminal and within the length of
of different end treatments available for the var- need. The end should be properly anchored
ious types of barriers. and capable of developing the full tensile
strength of the barrier elements.
A proper end terminal has two functions:
4. Where space is available, a barrier can
 In any non-rigid barrier system, the end
sometimes be introduced far enough from
terminal should act as an anchor to
approaching traffic so that the end can be con-
allow the full tensile strength of the sys-
tem to be developed during downstream sidered non-hazardous and no additional end

angled impacts on the barrier. treatment is required. Flare rates, in this case,
 Regardless of the type of barrier, the should be in accordance with those mentioned
end terminal should be crashworthy, i.e. above. Positive end anchorage is required in
it must keep the vehicle stable and it semi-flexible systems in order to preclude pene-
must keep the vehicle occupants away
tration of the barrier within the length of need.
from rigid points creating high decelera-
Care should be taken, however, to ensure that
tion resulting in serious injuries or death
this flaring back does not create a hazard for
during impact.
traffic in the opposing direction.
Experience has shown that metal beam sys- 5. End treatments involving turned down
tems often result in penetration of the passenger terminals parallel to the direction of travel may
compartment, and that high-speed impacts with cause impacting vehicles to vault and roll over
Geometric Design Guide
concrete barriers result in intolerable decelera- or ride up the terminal and hit the object the bar-
tion forces. In designing crashworthy end treat- rier is intended to protect. Consequently, turned
ments, designers must create treatments that down terminals should not be used on the
provide vehicle deceleration rates that are with- approach ends of roadside or median barriers
in recommended limits for survivability. on high-speed, high-volume roads unless they
are also flared.
A number of principles relevant to barrier end 6. Termination of a barrier in a back slope
treatments are offered: eliminates the danger of an untreated barrier
1. Crashworthy end treatments are essen- end and reduces the opportunity for errant vehi-
tial if a barrier terminates within the clear zone. cles to penetrate the end of the barrier.

8-29
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 7. A number of end treatments have been thumb approach. Road designers should still
developed for metal beam barriers that utilize a investigate physical site restrictions such as lon-
combination of a breakaway mechanism and a gitudinal space, hazard width, slopes and sur-
cable with a flared configuration to address the face types. At locations with a high likelihood of
spearing and roll-over potential and to develop collisions, the costs of accidents and repair
the full tensile strength of the rail for down- should be factored into the decision matrix in
stream impacts. addition to the initial installation costs.
8. Where an end treatment is designed as
a "gating" device, i.e., to allow for controlled Designers should note that new technologies
penetration of a vehicle when impacted, through are continually being developed and tested.
a breakaway mechanism, care should be taken Nothing in this Guide relieves the designer of
to provide an adequate run-out area behind the the responsibility of keeping abreast of these
end treatment. new technologies and their potential application
9. The concrete safety shape barrier can to the roadside barrier end treatment problem.
be terminated by tapering the end. However,
this treatment should only be used where 8.5 IMPACT ATTENUATION DEVICES
speeds are low (60 km/h or less) and space is
limited. Flaring the barrier beyond the clear 8.5.1 Function
zone should be considered on higher speed
facilities where space is available. Impact attenuators, sometimes called crash
10. Proprietary mechanical end treatments cushions, are best suited for use in places
are often suitable only for limited types of barri- where fixed objects cannot be removed, relocat-
er applications. When adopting such technolo- ed or made breakaway, and cannot be ade-
gies, designers should ensure not only the effi- quately shielded by a longitudinal barrier. They
cacy of the technology of their choice but also its have proven to be an effective and safe means
compatibility with the barrier technology being of shielding particular types of roadside obsta-
used. In addition to information generally avail- cles, and accomplish their task by absorbing
able from the manufacturers and suppliers of energy at a controlled rate, thereby causing the
these treatments, road agencies and others vehicle to decelerate so as to reduce the poten-
Geometric Design Guide

compile and provide appropriate guidance in tial for serious injury to its occupants. Most
respect of crash testing results and system operational impact attenuation devices have
compatibility recommendations. been designed and tested by their manufactur-
11. All systems should be installed with a ers and acceptable units can usually be select-
level surface leading to the treatment. The use ed directly from design charts.
of kerb and gutter is discouraged, but if they are
needed, only the mountable type should be Typical objects and areas that can benefit from
specified. the use of impact attenuators include:
 A freeway exit ramp gore area in an ele-
The principles noted above provide a rule of vated or depressed structure where a

8-30
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 bridge rail end or a pier requires shield- the preliminary design of the impact attenuator:
ing;  Hazard characteristics - type width and
 The ends of roadside or median barriers; height;
 Rigid objects like cantilever sign  Site geometry - including space avail-
gantries within the clear zone; able for installation;
 Construction work zones; and  Traffic pattern - bi-directional or uni-
 Toll booths. directional traffic;
 Slopes - preferably on flat surface, but
It is difficult to develop an easy selection with a slope of no more than 1:50 over
process for determining the most appropriate the length of the attenuator;
impact attenuator for a specific situation. This is  Design speed;

owing to the large number of factors influencing

 Kerb and roadway elevation; preferably
no kerb within 16 metres of attenuator;
the choice. The choice could therefore be nar-
 Probable angle of impact;
rowed down to the use of impact attenuators
 Base type and base features;
that have been installed in South Africa and for  Site features - are there any unique site
which a track record (however small at this features;
stage) is being built up. Another major consid-  Orientation - an attenuator should be ori-
eration is the ease with which these impact ented to maximize likelihood of head-on
impact, though a maximum angle of up
attenuators can be routinely maintained or rein-
to 10 degrees between roadway centre
stated after an impact. Certain impact attenua-
line and attenuation device is accept-
tors are marketed specifically as low mainte- able; and
nance attenuators.  Placement area.

Geometric Design Guide

8.5.2 Design/selection of impact atten- 8.5.3 Functional considerations

uators
Attenuators as well as barrier end-treatments
The detail design of impact attenuators should can be installed as bi-directional or uni-direc-
be done in conjunction with the manufacturer of tional as well as with redirective or non-redirec-
a specific attenuator and will be dependent on tive capabilities. As a general rule the chosen
the actual attenuator chosen for installation. system should be able to redirect an errant vehi-
The following factors should be considered for cle if the hazard being shielded is less than 3 m

8-31
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 from the edge of the travelled way. Typical func- tum and therefore do not need a backdrop in
tional considerations for attenuators and barrier front of the hazard being shielded.
end terminals are given in Table 8.7.
Recommendation pertaining to these devices
The designer should allow for enough space to are as follows:
install an attenuator in the most effective way  Single rows of barrels should not be

and to ensure that its performance will not be allowed for permanent installation;

compromised by insufficient placement areas.

 Barrels should be spaced some 150 mm
apart and stop 300 mm to 600 mm short
The particular system's requirements in terms of
of the hazard being shielded;
installation should also be met.
 Barrels should be positioned in such a
way that rigid corners of the hazard are
Figure 8.11 and Table 8.8 show the space to be overlapped by barrels by some 760 mm
reserved for sand-filled plastic drum attenuators (300 mm minimum) to reduce the sever-
under different design speed conditions. ity of angled impacts near to the rear of
the attenuator. Where such attenuators
are subject to bi-directional traffic flow,
8.5.4 Sand-filled plastic barrel impact
the array of barrels should be flush with
attenuators
the edge of the hazard so as to ensure
that reverse direction traffic does not
Sand-filled plastic barrel impact attenuators inadvertently impact the rear end of the
Geometric Design Guide

work on the principle of conservation of momen- barrel arrangement.

Figure 8.11: Space requirement for plastic drum attenuators

8-32
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 If speeds higher than 95 km/h are antic- A number of typical arrangements of sand-filled
ipated, barriers can be lengthened. barrel attenuators are shown in Figure 8.12.
Since most serious accidents occur at The legend illustrates the mass of sand con-
excessive speeds, an "over-design" is
tained in each barrel.
acceptable where space permits.

Geometric Design Guide

Figure 8.12: Typical arrangement of sand-filled barrel attenuators

8-33
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 8.6 RUNAWAY VEHICLE FACILITIES The purpose of escape ramps and arrestor beds
is to stop, without serious injury or serious dam-
8.6.1 Introduction age to vehicles, to adjacent property or to other
road users, those vehicles that become out-of-
Runaway-vehicle escape ramps and associated control on long downhill gradients. Deceleration
arrestor beds are specifically designed to rates of between 5 m/s2 and 6 m/s2 are obtained
reduce the safety hazard associated with out-of- by a full width level arrestor bed without the use
control heavy vehicles where long steep grades of vehicle brakes. (A 10 per cent down gradient
occur. on the bed surface can reduce the deceleration
The following factors are generally associated by about 1 m/s2). It should be noted that, under
with such incidents: high deceleration, inadequately restrained vehi-
 Gradient;
cle occupants, or insecurely attached cargo may
 Driver error such as failure to downshift
not be safely contained.
gears;
 Equipment failure such as defective
brakes; 8.6.2 Types of escape ramps
 Inexperience with the vehicle;
 Unfamiliarity with the specific location; There are six different types of truck escape

 Driver impairment due to fatigue or alco- ramp:

hol; and  Sand pile;
 Inadequate signing of downgrade.

-% +%

Road
A. Sandpile

-%

Road -%

B. Descending grade
Geometric Design Guide

-%

Road 0,0%

C. Horizontal grade

-%
+%
Road

D. Ascending grade

Figure 8.13: Typical arrestor beds

8-34
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Ascending grade arrestor bed; bed increases the rolling resistance, as in the

 Horizontal grade arrestor bed; other types of ramps, while the force of gravity

 Descending grade arrestor bed; and acts in the opposite direction to the movement

 Roadside arrestor bed. of the vehicle. The loose bedding material also

Figure 8.13 illustrates four types in general use. serves to hold the vehicle in place on the ramp
grade after it has come to a safe stop.
The sand pile types are composed of loose, dry Ascending grade ramps without an arrestor bed
sand and are usually no more than 130 metres are not encouraged in areas with moderate to
in length. The influence of gravity is dependent high commercial vehicle usage as heavy vehi-
on the slope of the surface of the sand pile. The cles may roll back and jack-knife upon coming
increase in rolling resistance to reduce overall to rest.
lengths is supplied by the loose sand. The
deceleration characteristics of the sand pile are Each one of the ramp types is applicable to a
severe and the sand can be affected by weath- particular situation where an emergency escape
er. Because of these characteristics, sand piles ramp is desirable and should be compatible with
are less desirable than arrestor beds. They may the location and topography. The most effective
be suitable where space is limited and the com- escape ramp is an ascending ramp with an
pacting properties of the sand pile are appropri- arrestor bed. On low volume roads with less
ate. than approximately 1000 vehicles per day, clear
run-off areas without arrestor beds are accept-
Descending grade ramps are constructed paral- able.
lel and adjacent to the through lanes of the
highway. They require the use of loose aggre- 8.6.3 Criteria for provision of escape
gate in an arrestor bed to increase rolling resist- ramps
ance and thus slow the vehicle. The descend-
ing-grade ramps can be rather lengthy because On hills where there is a history of accidents
the gravitational effect is not acting to help involving runaway vehicles, consideration
reduce the speed of the vehicle. should always be given to the provision of
escape ramps with arrestor beds. A measure of
Geometric Design Guide
In a horizontal-grade ramp, the effect of the effectiveness can be assessed by an analysis of
force of gravity is zero and the increase in rolling personal injury and "damage only" accidents
resistance has to be supplied by an arrestor bed plus the incidence of damage to property, based
composed of loose aggregate. This type of on local records.
ramp will be longer than those using gravitation-
al forces to help stop the vehicle. On new construction, where long steep gradi-
An ascending-grade ramp uses both the arrest- ents are unavoidable, and where the probability
ing bed and the effect of gravity, in general of damage caused by runaway vehicles is
reducing the length of ramp necessary to stop greater than normal, the provision of arrestor
the vehicle. The loose material in the arresting beds should be considered as an integral part of

8-35
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 the project design. As a guide for provision,  The length of downgrade;
where gradients are over 5 per cent, an arrestor  The conditions at the bottom of the
bed should be considered if the gradient (in per grade;
cent) squared, multiplied by the approach length  The percentage of heavy vehicles;

from the crest, in kilometres, is over 60.

 Horizontal alignment;
 Topography (i.e. effect on cost of earth
works); and
On long, straight stretches of down grade where
 Toll plazas at the bottom of steep grades
a sufficiently steep or long up-grade occurs
before any bend is met, observations of heavy
Runaway-vehicle facilities should not be con-
vehicle driver choice indicate that arrestor beds
structed where an out-of-control vehicle would
are unlikely to be used.
need to cross oncoming traffic.

8.6.4 Location of runaway-vehicle facil-

ities On divided carriageways, safety ramps may
also be located in the median if sufficient space
On both new and existing roads, engineering is available. This would be in conflict with driv-
judgement is required to determine the location er expectations and prominent advance warning
of arrestor beds. Relevant factors to be consid- signs prior to the safety ramp exit would have to
ered include: be provided. Because of the conflict with driver
 The location of previous accidents; expectations, providing arrestor beds in the
Geometric Design Guide

Figure 8.14: Layout of arrestor bed adjacent to carriageway

8-36
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 Figure 8.15: Layout of arrestor bed remote from carriageway

median is not a recommended practice but, in local schools should be informed that these are
the case of a sharp curve to the left at the bot- dangerous locations so that children are dis-
tom of a steep downgrade this location may couraged from playing in them.

prove to be necessary.
Lack of suitable sites for the installation of
For safety ramps to be effective, their location is
ascending type ramps may necessitate the
critical. They should be located prior to, or at
installation of horizontal or descending arrestor
the start of, the smaller radius curves along the
beds. Suitable sites for horizontal or descend-
alignment. For example, an escape ramp after
ing arrestor beds can also be limited, particular-
the tightest curve will be of little benefit if trucks
ly if the downward direction is on the outside or
are unable to negotiate the curves leading up to
fill side of the roadway formation. The entrance Geometric Design Guide
it. As vehicle brake temperature is a function of
to the bed should be clearly signed for drivers of
the length of the grade, escape ramps are gen-
runaway vehicles and clearway restrictions
erally located within the bottom half of the steep-
should be applied so that the entrance is kept
er section of the alignment.
freely accessible. Adequate visibility to the
entrance must be available so as to give drivers
Where possible, arrestor beds should not be
located in verges on the outside of right-hand time to manoeuvre their vehicles into the bed

curves, or at any other location where there is a and, as a minimum requirement, visibility equal

likelihood of vehicles mistakenly entering the to the desirable stopping sight distance appro-
bed during the hours of darkness. Where priate to the anticipated maximum speed of run-
arrestor beds are constructed in built-up areas, away vehicles should be provided.

8-37
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
 8.6.5 Arrestor bed design features increased by 3 per cent for each one degree of
slope.
Suggested layouts for an arrestor bed immedi-
ately adjacent to the carriageway, are shown in Width of bed
Figure 8.14 and, in Figure 8.15, for a bed sepa-
rated from the road. Where space permits, the
As a general guide a constant bed width of 4,0 -
arrangement separated from the road should be
5,0 metres is adequate. Barrier kerbing with a
used.
300 mm up stand should be installed at the side
of the bed remote from the carriageway to assist
Length of bed
in restricting sideways movement. The use of
safety fencing may also be desirable. The bed
The length of bed required to halt runaway vehi- should be separated from the main carriageway,
cles is dependent on the predominant vehicle where possible, by at least 2,0 metres, and flush
type, the likely speed of entry into the bed, the kerbing may be required locally where the road
type and depth of aggregate used and the slope is provided with 1,0 metre wide hard strips.
of the arrestor bed. The bed length for all-pur-
pose roads should cope with the critical design Depth of bed material
vehicle, generally a large articulated vehicle with
multiple axle groups. This vehicle is likely to Beds should have depths between 300 mm and
have the highest entry velocity and the lowest 450 mm with the depth gradually increasing
average deceleration rate. over an initial length in order to provide for
smooth vehicle entry. Where entry velocities
Table 8.9 gives suggested lengths for horizontal are less than 75 km/h, vehicle deceleration is
grade arrestor beds (excluding the initial depth significantly higher for beds which contain
transition zone). Where the bed surface is greater depths of bed material, whereas, at
aligned on a downgrade its length should be speeds above 75 km/h, decelerations tend to be
Geometric Design Guide

* L as shown on Figure 8.13 (bed length to be 25 per cent greater)

8-38
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety
independent of bed depth. The greater (450 8.7 BRAKE CHECK AND BRAKE
mm) depth gives around 50 per cent greater REST AREAS
stopping ability than the minimum (350 mm)
provision and should be considered where bed A brake check area or a compulsory truck stop
length is restricted. is an area set aside before the steep descent as
distinct from a brake rest area which is an area
Type of material
set aside for commercial vehicles part way down
or at the bottom of the descent.
To achieve a high deceleration rate it is neces-
sary that vehicle tyres sink into the bed materi-
al. Rounded uncrushed gravel and single size These facilities should be provided on routes

cubic aggregate or similar artificial lightweight that have long steep downgrades and commer-

aggregate has performed satisfactorily in tests cial vehicle numbers of around 500 per day,

and should be used in preference to angular especially on National Roads and principal traf-

gravel (i.e. crushed rock) or sand, which tend to fic routes. These areas, when used, will ensure

restrict wheel penetration and compact with time that drivers begin the descent at zero speed and

and usage. in a low gear that may make the difference

between controlled and out-of-control operation

Arrestor bed material should be free draining on the downgrade. They would also provide an

and adequate drainage should be provided so opportunity to display information about the

that in freezing or saturated conditions it still grade ahead, escape ramp locations and maxi-

retains its function of wheel penetration, thereby mum safe recommended descent speeds.

bringing vehicles to a standstill. A suitable spec-

ification for the bed material is given below as a These areas may need to be large enough to
guide. This may need to be modified to allow store several semi-trailers, the actual numbers
locally available suitable materials to be used, in depending on volume and predicted arrival rate.
the light of further experience and testing.
Their location would need good visibility with
Typical specification for arrestor bed material acceleration and deceleration tapers provided.
Adequate signage should be provided to advise
Geometric Design Guide
The material should be clean, uncrushed, hard drivers in advance of the facilities. Special
durable natural gravel consisting primarily of signs, specific to the site, may need to be
smooth round particles. Alternatively, an appro- designed for these areas.
priate artificial lightweight aggregate may be used.
The following particle size distribution is suit-
able:

BS Sieve Size Percentage by mass passing

10 mm 100%
5 mm 0%

8-39
Chapter 8: Roadside Safety