Evaluation of Raised Safety Platforms (RSP) On-Road Safety Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Evaluation of Raised Safety Platforms (RSP) on-road safety performance" presents an interesting experimental study conducted on the effects produced by the RSP integration in different intersections. However, multiple affirmations aren’t supported by the provided references or the experimental results obtained, and many other issues must be addressed.
The paper needs revisions before being processed further.
Abstract
The novelty of the study wasn’t highlighted in the abstract. Please improve.
The authors state that the RSP are placed at major intersections, but there is no study/evidence to support this affirmation. They can be used in all types of intersections. Please remove the term "major".
Introduction section
The introduction section can be improved. Multiple affirmations aren’t supported by the provided references or by the obtained experimental results. Please introduce citation at a specific position to assure a clear correspondence between the affirmations from the introduction section and the previous publication. Please introduce the corresponding citation to support the affirmations from the introduction section. E.g.
The affirmation: "At frequently…. Speed behavior”, "noting that riders… their use", "some medical practitioners….health hazard"; "they are designed…(of heavy vehicles)."
“In Victoria…increase of 100mm" – please provide evidence or cite the standard according to which those RSP have been manufactured.
"The grade of the approach… on higher speed roads" – How have been these data obtained?
Figure 1. – please introduce figure labels to highlight the area of interest for the readers.
Figure 1 – please replace the term “treatment” with a more suitable one.
Please introduce corresponding citations for the following affirmations:
"In particular, the likelihood….. 50km/h."
"Based on the speed-limit.... System speed values..."
1.2. Project objective subsection.
Please highlight the novelty of this study, emphasize the differences between this study and those previously presented.
The study was conducted over a long period, was the wear of the RSP considered in the study? Does the RSP have the same effect on traffic on the first day of implementation compared to the last day of the experiment?
"Potential for conflicts and red-light running was also studied but these have not been addressed here." – Was this addressed in a previous study, please cite that study.
2.2. subsection
"within the period 8/11/2018 to 13/12/2018." – was this analyzed performed for 12 months as stated in the abstract and the first paragraph from 2.1 section or just for five weeks?
Equation 1: please describe all the parameters. ?0, ?1, ?2, ?3 are missing from the description.
Table 1 – Does Site A etc. refers to the studied intersections? Please provide the schematic representation for each intersection. Also,
"Table 2 shows there was overall a 8.3 km/h (19.8%) significant reduction in the mean 215 speed on the approach to a treated site." What was the reason for these differences? Is this because of the position or scheme of the intersection or because of the number of cars that passed through that intersection? Does the number of cars affect the passing speed? What was the average speed detected when the traffic was uncrowded?
Conclusion section
After such a long and quantitative result and discussion, the conclusion looks vague. It needs to be more quantitative based on the findings from the speed measurements. Present it more quantitatively. Rewrite it.
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Evaluation of Raised Safety Platforms (RSP) on-road safety performance
Brendan Lawrence, Brian Fildes, Peter Cairney, Stephanie Davey and Amir Sobhani
Subject: The research topic is appropriate.
Title: Clear and corresponds to the content of the article.
Abstract: Appropriate, including the purpose of the research. However, the Raised Safety Platform is not a new intervention; it was used a long time ago in Europe.
Raised safety platform - made more than ten years ago in Budapest.
- Introduction
The presentation of previous studies is appropriate.
The description of previous studies is incomplete as there are previously known scientific publications on the subject. (CETUR : Etude d’eficacité d’un passage piéton surélevé, Direction de la voire – Centre de recherches et d’études techniques, Paris1992; Herman, F.H. – Cynecki, M.J.: The effects of traffic calming measures on pedestrian and motorist behavior, Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Research Report August, 200)
The choice of topic is justified. However, it is not sure that the speed reduction will reduce emissions and noise emissions, as accelerating vehicles after braking is energy-intensive and has a sound effect. Therefore, the conditions under which an improvement can be identified should be justified.
When using the RSP, it is necessary to examine how it fits into the transport network and does not adversely affect route selection.
The RSP can only be used effectively at specific locations (route function and intersection characteristics), not as a general safety tool. Therefore, I miss a description of where and why it should be applied.
- Materials and Methods
The presentation of the method is sufficiently detailed and understandable.
The applied methods meet the research objectives.
I miss the numbering of the figure in section 2.2.
- Results
The total number of speed observations is appropriate; and suitable for drawing accurate conclusions.
I suggest a diagram to illustrate the velocity distribution measured at each measurement location, indicating the 85% value.
- Discussion
The evaluation is appropriate, well structured, understandable.
- Conclusions
The conclusions are appropriate based on the results presented.
I suggest explaining in more detail where it is worth applying; the proposal is too general.
References
The references in the literature presented are well suited to the topic. In addition, the quality, quantity, and value of the cited papers are good. Therefore, I suggest adding some of the articles mentioned.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study is an evaluation of the effectiveness of raised safety platforms in reducing vehicle speeds and accidents at intersections. To this end, the authors present a sound methodology with significant outcomes and coherent arguments. The analysis covers a good range of performance measures for a holistic evaluation of the RSPs. Given the range of analysis, the discussion and conclusions are sound and compelling.
However, there is one minor concern with this work. While the authors bring up the log-link regression model, it is not presented mathematically in the work. Moreover, the results pertaining to this log-link regression model, i.e., the change in mean speed for the treatment group adjusted for change in mean speed in the control group is only presented for approach to intersection and not departure from the intersection.
And finally, it would be interesting if authors can discuss some of the second order effects of raised safety platforms in the discussion/conclusion section. For instance, what is the impact of RSPs on intersection capacity? Possibly due to reduced speeds, the capacity must also reduce.
Author Response
Thank you for you review
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors adressed most of my comments and suggestions and the manuscript was improved accordingly.
The paper can be accepted as it is.
"What is 215 speeds?" 215 is the line from the original manuscript (it was copied with the sentence from the manuscript during revision).
