Robert Morgan

What Went Wrong withWhat Went Wrong withROAD SAFETY ROAD SAFETY

AUDITING?AUDITING?

Robert MorganRobert MorganTraffic Engineer & Traffic Engineer &

Road Safety Engineer, MelbourneRoad Safety Engineer, Melbourne

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana (1863 – 1952) in ‘The Life of Reason’’

Progress = retention of experience

The opposite is childishness- constant change and

not accounting for experience

Retention – and passing on –

of experience

requires large enough and stable organisations

The late 1980s

The advent of road safety auditing

Coincided with the advent of economic rationalism

• Downsizing• Outsourcing• (Dumbing down)

Adverse outcomes: typically with safety & maintenance

A dam failsA building collapsesA fire kills people

Road safety shifts - from manage and fix the roads- to focus on driver behaviour

Adverse outcomes are obvious

Adverse

outcomes are hidden

Road Safety Fundamentalism:

“Acceptable drivers all must be - mild, obedient, good as He”

- is a way to help practitioners produce a better (safer) project

- through the input of an experienced road safety engineer

Road Safety AuditingRoad Safety Auditing

This input is not always happeningThis input is not always happening

- the bar for entry is set too low

- how can less experienced people gain more experience?

Road Safety Auditing Road Safety Auditing – some of the problems– some of the problems

1. Experience is Undervalued1. Experience is Undervalued

- the original problem is now our problem



- Audits led by an accredited Senior Road Safety Auditor: 60%- Audits led by an accredited Road Safety Auditor: 7%

- Audits led by a person not accredited at all: 33%



- Road Safety Engineering experience, not just engineering experience

- detailed knowledge of some technical aspects

e.g. crash barriers; direction signs


2. The Right Type of Experience 2. The Right Type of Experience



Sign 1 – I need to exit for Western Ring Road

Sign 2 – I need to exit for Western Ring Road

Sign 3 – I need to exit .. er stay .. er exit .. er .. Too Late !!

Wrong signing convention for a Freeway-to-Freeway interchange



- Needs a Code of Conduct for Road Safety Auditors

- Needs State Road Authority / Local Government Engineering / Consultant Road Safety Audit Panel in each state/territory



- It does matter

- But it’s just the start

- No need to obsess about it. Get the main issues covered


3. Training3. Training

Some issues are not on the radar, e.g. -

- Auditing the specification for Design and Construct contracts

- Auditing land use developments;Getting a road safety engineer involved in the concept phases of land use(e.g. Structure Plans)


4. Commitment to Auditing4. Commitment to Auditing



Design and ConstructSpecifications


4. Commitment to Auditing4. Commitment to Auditing Not auditingat all

Dr Ray Brindle, 1989:14 conditions by which any new development would

be deemed to satisfy traffic performance, amenity and road safety requirements.

Conditions 3: There are no direct frontages to arterial or district distributor roads, or to connectors.

“… when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”



‘ … concern about safety, however genuine, is insufficient. Our professional standards and warrants demonstrate a great deal of concern for safety, but these standards are too rarely based on a defensible knowledge of facts’

Ezra Hauer, Professor of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Toronto


5. Auditing to Standards 5. Auditing to Standards

Standards ≠ Safety

In training workshops, I cover this topic

It needs to be in the national road safetyengineering syllabus

Get more people to gain experience


5. Auditing to Standards 5. Auditing to Standards

In 1989 (1st edition of the audit guide)

- it was Quality Assurance

‘Why is road safety audit needed at all, now that there is QA ?’

QA is process-focussed: success is ‘steps completed’

Auditing is about ‘identifying safety issues’: needs experience


6. Fads 6. Fads

Now (4th edition of the audit guide)

- it’s Safe Road System approach

What exactly is it?

A lot of ‘telling others what to do’: drivers to be ‘compliant’

No interest in our actions having credibility


6. Fads 6. Fads

Safe Road System approach:

1. Obsession with speed limits2. Otherwise, forgiving roads & roadsides

What about the myriad other avoidable road layout and design issues that affect road safety?


6. Fads 6. Fads

We need them!

Experience in W.A.

Involving a broader base of experience:state road authorities, local governmentengineering & experienced consultants


7. Road Safety Audit Panels 7. Road Safety Audit Panels

Obsession with systematising and harmonising processes – an indication of inexperience

Absence of experienced practitioners in project

Not a collaborative approach

Wanting a uniform format for reports

Enthusiasm for electronic tools

Road Safety Auditing Road Safety Auditing – the Future ?– the Future ?

Proposals for new Audit guidelines Proposals for new Audit guidelines

Confused about the relationship between audits and Safe Road System approach- SRSA comes at Response phase- can’t ‘audit to SRSA principles’

Off-target ideas- use of ‘consider’ in audit recommendations- assessments at reduced cost where road managers may lack ready access to road safety auditors. Misunderstands the need for road safety engineering experience.



Missing items & little interest in them:

• Model procedures for audits of land use developments.• The types of experience needed for different aspects of a

big project.• Confirming that experience is the no. 1 requirement for

successful audits.• Design and construct projects: how to include auditing.• Safety vs. standards: expand this section.• Five years experience is too low for an audit team leader.• Too many major problems with design projects are still

getting through. Discuss as case studies.• How to deal with a lapse in audits/year if experienced.



New guidelines: a travel guide to Neverland?

The bar is set too low for audit team leader experience.

Broadly-based RSA Panels are needed.

Back to the original problem: how do we get road safety engineering experience input and how do we get more people to gain that experience?


ConclusionsConclusions

Who can we rely on to get road safety audit back on the rails?

- Austroads?

- ARRB?

- Experienced practitioners?

- Who else?


ConclusionsConclusions

Robert Morgan

Business

Transcript of Robert Morgan