Optimizing Road Safety Inspections on Rural Roads
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- The inspection reports, arranged just for freeways and major highway roads, are applied to secondary and local rural roads. These types of roads present different safety issues related to the arterial ones. In fact, they are characterized by greater promiscuity both in terms of the type of road users and the interaction with the territory. This is due to their greater accident unpredictability, caused by less defined mobility functions;
- The integration of theoretical evaluation criteria of the road (e.g., geometrical, and technical) in the settlement of an investigation inspection process;
- Video recording while driving and the subsequent processing through the application of calculation codes improves the readability of the infrastructure because inspectors can consult videos synchronized with the location of the vehicle in relation to the road distances;
- Weights and scores were proposed for the different characteristics of the infrastructure, which are sensitive to the type of the performed analysis and the roadway inspected.
2.1. Diagnosis Phase
2.1.1. Procedure for the Identification of the Existing Road Alignment
2.1.2. Use of GPS Sensors and Videos
2.1.3. Reports Compilation
2.2. Treatment Phase
2.2.1. Report Indicators Weightings Proposal
- Red: Risky. Consistent results showing an increased risk of crashes or injuries when exposed to this risk factor;
- Yellow: Probably risky. Some evidence that there is increased risk when exposed to this risk factor, but results are not consistent. This could be because while the majority of studies demonstrate a risk, there may be some studies with inconsistent results. Or, studies indicate a risk but are few in number or have methodological weakness;
- Grey: Unclear. Studies report opposite effects. There are few studies with inconsistent results, few studies with weak indication or risk;
- Green. Probably not risky. Studies consistently demonstrate that this risk factor is not associated with increased crash risk, frequency or severity.”
2.2.2. Report Synthetic Value Proposal
2.3. Case Study
3. Results
- Lmin is the minimum length for a straight line, depending on the maximum design speed. In the specific case Lmin = 150 m;
- Rmin is the minimum radius value for a specified road class. It depends on the minimum design speed of that class, and in the specific case Rmin = 118 m;
- ΔV is the speed difference between two adjacent elements, characterized by their own design speed;
- DT (transition distance) is the length in which the speed, according to the accepted theoretical model, passes from the value vi to vi+1, of two consecutive elements;
- DR (recognition distance) is the maximum length of a road section within which the driver can recognize possible obstacles;
- Rvmin is the minimum radius value for a vertical curve, related to the design criteria (i.e., geometric, dynamic, and sight distances verifications);
- Δmax curve widening due to sight distances verifications.
- the severity of the issue (through the degrees of risk attributed to the indicators);
- the potential to result in a higher accident frequency (by means of the weights associated with the risk factors).
4. Discussion
- -
- the closure of direct accesses, introducing coordinated accesses and service roads;
- -
- the widening of shoulders
- -
- the removal of visual obstructions in curve 4 through vegetation cutting works;
- -
- the introduction of centerline “rumble strips” at curve 4 and similar cross strips at approaches to some accesses and at intersections;
- -
- the resurfacing of pavement and road markings, and the improvement of lighting conditions by installing an efficient lighting system at the approaches.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- European Commission. Directive 2008/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Road Infrastructure Safety Management; European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Parlamento Italiano. Attuazione della Direttiva 2008/96/CE sulla Gestione della Sicurezza delle Infrastrutture Stradali. (Implementation of the European Directive 2008/96/CE Concerning the Road Safety Management); Decreto Legislativo N. 35/2011; Parlamento Italiano: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Parlamento Italiano. Attuazione della Direttiva (UE) 2019/1936 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio, del 23 Ottobre 2019, che Modifica la Direttiva 2008/96/CE sulla Gestione della Sicurezza delle Infrastrutture Stradali; Decreto Legislativo N. 213/2021; Parlamento Italiano: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- EUR-Lex-32019L1936-EN-EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1936/oj (accessed on 14 January 2023).
- Wang, C.; Quddus, M.A.; Ison, S. The Effect of Traffic and Road Characteristics on Road Safety: A Review and Future Research Direction. Saf. Sci. 2013, 57, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polidori, C.; Cocu, X.; Volckaert, A.; Teichner, T.; Lemke, K.; Saleh, P.; Pokorny, P. Safety Prevention Manual for Secondary Roads: For the International Training of Road Safety Inspectors and Auditors; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Cafiso, S.; La Cava, G.; Montella, A.; Pappalardo, G. Manuale per le Ispezioni di Sicurezza delle Strade Extraurbane Secondarie e Locali. IASP, Project TREN-03-st-s07, 31286; European Union: Brussel, Belgium; Regional Province of Catania: Catania, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Leur, P.; Sayed, T. Development of a Road Safety Risk Index. Transp. Res. Rec. 2002, 1784, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IRAP Methodology Fact Sheets. Available online: https://irap.org/methodology/ (accessed on 2 December 2022).
- Lynam, D.; Hummel, T.; Barker, J.; Lawson, S.D. European Road Assessment Programme EuroRAP I (2003) Technical Report; EuroRAP: Brussel, Belgium, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Montella, A. Safety Reviews of Existing Roads: Quantitative Safety Assessment Methodology. Transp. Res. Rec. 2005, 1922, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cafiso, S.; La Cava, G.; Montella, A. Safety index for evaluation of two-lane rural highways. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2019, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaiana, R.; Iuele, T.; Astarita, V.; Festa, D.C.; Tassitani, A.; Rogano, D.; Zaffino, C. Road safety performance assess-ment: A new road network Risk Index for info mobility. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 111, 624–633. [Google Scholar]
- Zegeer, C.V.; Council, F.M. Safety relationships associated with cross-sectional roadway elements. Transp. Res. Rec. 1995, 1512, 29–36. [Google Scholar]
- Potts, I.B.; Harwood, D.W.; Richard, K.R. Relationship of Lane Width to Safety on Urban and Suburban Arterials. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2023, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AP-T153-10|Austroads. Available online: https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-safety/ap-t153-10 (accessed on 2 December 2022).
- Hosseinpour, M.; Yahaya, A.S.; Sadullah, A.F. Exploring the Effects of Roadway Characteristics on the Frequency and Severity of Head-On Crashes: Case Studies from Malaysian Federal Roads. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 62, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turner, B.; Tziotis, M.; Hillier, P.; Beck, D.; Makwasha, T. Guide to Road Safety: Part 8: Treatment of Crash Locations (No. AGRS08-15); Austroads: Sydney, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Head On—Road Safety Toolkit—IRAP. Available online: https://toolkit.irap.org/crash-type/head-on/ (accessed on 2 December 2022).
- Rear End—Road Safety Toolkit—IRAP. Available online: https://toolkit.irap.org/crash-type (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- IRAP, Road Safety Toolkit—Crash Type—Run Off. Available online: https://toolkit.irap.org/crash-type (accessed on 2 December 2022).
- Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti. Linee Guida per la Gestione della Sicurezza delle Infrastrutture Stradali; Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Cantisani, G.; Del Serrone, G.; Biagio, G.D. Calibration and Validation of and Results from a Micro-Simulation Model to Explore Drivers’ Actual Use of Acceleration Lanes. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2018, 89, 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombaroni, C.; Fusco, G.; Isaenko, N. Analysis of Road Safety Speed from Floating Car Data. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 45, 898–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantisani, G.; Del Serrone, G.; Peluso, P. Reliability of Historical Car Data for Operating Speed Analysis along Road Networks. Sci 2022, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaiana, R.; Perri, G.; Iuele, T.; Gallelli, V. A Comprehensive Approach Combining Regulatory Procedures and Accident Data Analysis for Road Safety Management Based on the European Directive 2019/1936/EC. Safety 2021, 7, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Il Decreto Legislativo n. 35/2011—Adozione Delle Linee Guida—Schede Ispezioni Mit. Available online: https://www.mit.gov.it/node/7014 (accessed on 14 January 2023).
- Karlaftis, M.G.; Golias, I. Effects of Road Geometry and Traffic Volumes on Rural Roadway Accident Rates. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2002, 34, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cantisani, G.; Del Serrone, G. Procedure for the Identification of Existing Roads Alignment from Georeferenced Points Database. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantisani, G. Results of Micro-Simulation Model for Exploring Drivers’ Behavior on Acceleration Lanes. Eur. Transp. Eur. 2020, 77, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Road Safety Decision Support System Developed by the H2020 Project. Available online: https://www.safetycube-project.eu/ (accessed on 7 December 2022).
- Filtness, A.; Papadimitriou, E. (Eds.) Identification of Infrastructure Related Risk Factors, Deliverable 5.1 of the H2020 Project; SafetyCube: Loughborough, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Archivio Notizie, ACI. Available online: https://www.aci.it/archivio-notizie/notizia.html (accessed on 15 January 2023).
- IT Ministry for Infrastructures and Transport. Ministerial Decree Nov, 5-2001, No. 6792. Norme Funzionali e Geometriche per la Costruzione delle Strade; Official Gazette of IT Republic: Rome, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Stamatiadis, N. National Research Council Impact of Shoulder Width and Median Width on Safety; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Volume 633, ISBN 0-309-11782-8. [Google Scholar]
- Ben-Bassat, T.; Shinar, D. Effect of Shoulder Width, Guardrail and Roadway Geometry on Driver Perception and Behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 2142–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mecheri, S.; Rosey, F.; Lobjois, R. The Effects of Lane Width, Shoulder Width, and Road Cross-Sectional Reallocation on Drivers’ Behavioral Adaptations. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 104, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, S.; Wang, J.; Fu, T. Effects of Lane Width, Lane Position and Edge Shoulder Width on Driving Behavior in Underground Urban Expressways: A Driving Simulator Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2016, 13, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Macro-Items | Items | Parameters | Indicators |
---|---|---|---|
Right-of-way | (Roadway, Median, and Roadside) | Shoulder | Suitable width or absence |
Shrinkage near a structure | |||
Lane and Fast Lane | Suitable width | ||
Excess width | |||
Sideslope | Building maintenance | ||
Green maintenance | |||
Drainage | Maintenance | ||
Fencing | Maintenance |
Straight Road | Circular Curves | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial Dist. (km) | Final Dist. (km) | L > Lmin | R > Rmin | ΔV = Vi − Vi+1 Velletri Dir. (km/h) | ΔV = Vi+1 − Vi Genzano Dir. (km/h) | DT ≤ DR Velletri Dir. | DT ≤ DR Genzano Dir. |
30.45 | 30.95 | X | |||||
30.95 | 31.45 | ||||||
31.45 | 31.95 | V3 − V4 = 33 > 20 | V5 − V4 = 24 > 20 | ||||
31.95 | 32.45 | X | V6 − V7 = 37 > 20 | V10 − V9 = 40 > 20 | |||
32.45 | 32.95 | ||||||
32.95 | 33.45 | V10 − V11 = 22 > 20 | |||||
33.45 | 33.95 | ||||||
33.95 | 34.45 | X | X | ||||
34.45 | 34.95 | ||||||
34.95 | 35.45 | V19 − V20 = 28 > 20 | V18 − V17 = 58 > 20 | 395.68 > 333 | |||
35.45 | 35.95 | ||||||
35.95 | 36.45 | X | |||||
36.45 | 36.95 | X | X | V25 − V24 = 22 > 20 | |||
36.95 | 37.45 | V26 − V25 = 36 > 20 | |||||
37.45 | 37.95 | X | X | V26 − V27 = 60 > 20 | V28 − V27 = 60 > 20 | 368 > 321 | 403 > 333 |
Vertical Curve Fitting | Visibility | Plano-Altimetric Coordination | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial Dist. (km) | Final Dist. (km) | Rv > Rvmin | Δmax | Δmax | Obstacles | |
30.45 | 30.95 | −6.1 | −1.6 | Sideslope Curve 1 | ||
30.95 | 31.45 | |||||
31.45 | 31.95 | 3.8 | 1.3 | Sideslope Curve 3 | ||
−2.8 | 0 | Vegetation Curve 4 | ||||
31.95 | 32.45 | 0 | 3.2 | Sideslope Curve 5 | ||
32.45 | 32.95 | 0 | 3.1 | Vegetation. Curve 9 | ||
−4.3 | −1.7 | Vegetation. Curve 10 | ||||
32.95 | 33.45 | 0 | 3.3 | Vegetation Curve 11 | ||
33.45 | 33.95 | −3.4 | 0 | Barrier Curve 12 | ||
33.95 | 34.45 | 0.8 | 4.4 | Wall Curve 13 | ||
34.45 | 34.95 | −7.9 | −3.3 | Sideslope with Vegetation Curve 15 | ||
34.95 | 35.45 | −2.4 | 0 | Sideslope with Vegetation Curve 17 | ||
35.45 | 35.95 | 0 | 4.7 | Wall Curve 18 | ||
0.5 | 1.5 | Sideslope Curve 19 | ||||
35.95 | 36.45 | 1.4 | 5.6 | Wall Curve 20 | ||
−3.5 | 0 | Trees Curve 21 | ||||
36.45 | 36.95 | 0.8 | 4.1 | Vegetation Curve 22 | ||
0 | 2.2 | Wall Curve 23 | ||||
36.95 | 37.45 | Sag:2000 < 2182 | 0 | 4 | Vegetation Curve 25 | dir. Genzano 37.42: False fold of the perspective view of the roadsides |
0 | 1.1 | Wall Curve 26 | ||||
37.45 | 37.95 | Crest:1000 < 3188 | −2 | 0 | Barrier Curva 27 | dir. Genzano 37.47: Masking of planimetric direction change |
0 | 9.1 | Sideslope/wall Curve 28 |
500 m Section | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dist. Initial (m) | 30 + 450 | 30 + 950 | 31 + 450 | 31 + 950 | 32 + 450 | 32 + 950 | 33 + 450 | 33 + 950 | 34 + 450 | 34 + 950 | 35 + 450 | 35 + 950 | 36 + 450 | 36 + 950 | 37 + 450 |
Dist. Final (m) | 30 + 950 | 31 + 450 | 31 + 950 | 32 + 450 | 32 + 950 | 33 + 450 | 33 + 950 | 34 + 450 | 34 + 950 | 35 + 450 | 35 + 950 | 36 + 450 | 36 + 950 | 37 + 450 | 37 + 950 |
15.02 | 13.01 | 18.99 | 23.01 | 15.03 | 16.02 | 16.00 | 17.68 | 20.64 | 19.03 | 23.69 | 23.34 | 20.68 | 19.03 | 22.03 | |
16.02 | 11.33 | 18.31 | 18.69 | 8.99 | 12.33 | 13.32 | 16.67 | 15.00 | 19.68 | 22.34 | 24.69 | 22.69 | 21.02 | 25.37 | |
0.00 | 0.00 | 10.72 | 20.77 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17.42 | 0.00 | 14.74 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 19.77 | 26.80 | 21.44 | |
0.45 | 0.35 | 0.70 | 0.91 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.75 | 0.52 | 0.78 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 1.00 | |
4.00 | 7.00 | 20.00 | 5.00 | 11.00 | 9.00 | 14.00 | 15.00 | ||||||||
0.20 | 0.35 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 0.55 | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.75 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cantisani, G.; Borrelli, C.C.; Del Serrone, G.; Peluso, P. Optimizing Road Safety Inspections on Rural Roads. Infrastructures 2023, 8, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8020030
Cantisani G, Borrelli CC, Del Serrone G, Peluso P. Optimizing Road Safety Inspections on Rural Roads. Infrastructures. 2023; 8(2):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8020030
Chicago/Turabian StyleCantisani, Giuseppe, Chiara Caterina Borrelli, Giulia Del Serrone, and Paolo Peluso. 2023. "Optimizing Road Safety Inspections on Rural Roads" Infrastructures 8, no. 2: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8020030
APA StyleCantisani, G., Borrelli, C. C., Del Serrone, G., & Peluso, P. (2023). Optimizing Road Safety Inspections on Rural Roads. Infrastructures, 8(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8020030