Protect and Survive

Star Rating England's Trunk Road Network for Safety

1 Foreword

John Dawson, Chairman, EuroRAP

ritain wastes 1.5% of GDP on road crashes. More than is spent on primary schools or GPs. Sudden, violent Broad crashes are the leading cause of death for most age groups. Britain wastes 1.5% Despite the other risks we face, despite improvements in road deaths, risks on the roads remain in a league on their own. We face a risk of dying on the road eight times greater than any other accidental death. Crashes cost the British economy £18bn a year. Road deaths are concentrated on a network that we know can be targeted and made safe. Some two- of GDP on road thirds of all deaths are outside towns, mainly on busy rural ‘A’ roads.

Deaths and crippling injuries can be simple and affordable to prevent. In a cold financial climate, there is no reason to spend so much on expensive emergency services, health services and social services. There are proven low cost, high return vaccines for roads which prevent death and injury. Safety fencing prevents brutal collisions with roadside objects. Safe turning bays for right turning traffic stop high energy impacts. Clear road markings on bends can prevent the loss of crashes. That's more control that kills and maims.

Around the world, governments and others are forging plans to reduce road deaths over the next decade. Leading countries are rolling out new systematic approaches which can make road travel as safe as air or rail.

The British government, with admirable simplicity, has proposed the national goal for the next decade should be to create than we spend on “the safest roads in the world”. It has endorsed the ‘safe system’ adopted by all leading countries which means linked action to make our driving, our vehicles and our road infrastructure safer. The Swedes have proved that belted, sober drivers obeying the speed limit in the safest 5-star cars on the safest 4-star roads run tiny risks of death or serious injury. New car crash safety has already soared from 2- to 4-star and 5-star level since the independent EuroNCAP tests in the 1990s primary schools or began. Tens of thousands of lives have already been saved across Europe. We can and must make driving yet safer. We need safer road layouts in our cities. But the greatest practical potential for saving life in Britain is through safe road design programmes on our busy ‘A’ roads.

The Highways Agency in England is the UK’s largest road authority. It is responsible for motorways and other trunk roads. It is the first in Britain to offer its entire network up to independent EuroRAP ‘star rating’ for safety and to consider the results in GPs. guiding further improvements. It is to be congratulated for this openness. It will permit national network performance to be tracked alongside leading countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden during the decade ahead, as well as against dozens of other countries worldwide.

Importantly, the Highways Agency has given a lead for Britain’s local road authorities on whose roads most fatal crashes occur.

Dr Joanne Hill, Director, Road Safety Foundation Contents ritain’s motorway design rightly aims to be the best we can provide. But on these heavily trafficked trunk roads, any serious deficiency in their layout will lead sooner rather than later to fatal consequences. B 6 How we Star Rate roads These star rating results show that half of our motorways do not achieve the expected 4-star safety rating standard simply because side run-off protection is inconsistent or lacking. It helps explain why there are about 10 deaths and 30 serious injuries each year on British motorways involving collisions with trees. 7 Inspecting the Highways Agency network Our trunk road dual carriageways also have these same side run-off shortcomings. But many stretches also score poorly because there are cross-roads, T-junctions and lay-bys which are not laid out to provide the protection 16 EuroRAP Star Rating map for the necessary for busy inter-urban national roads. Highways Agency stategic road network in England Our trunk road single carriageways also have the same problems of inadequate run-off protection and junction layout and also have the additional risk of head-on crashes. Road-users can be separated by no more than a splash of paint in 18 Summary and conclusions the centre of the road. High performing nations are introducing radical new designs to ensure safer overtaking and better separation of busy high speed traffic even on single carrigeways and the UK should join and help lead this international development. 19 Recommendations

This bold study on national roads holds lessons for the rest of our ‘A’ road network outside city centres. The majority of British road deaths are concentrated on ‘A’ roads under local authority control. This is the network we must target with safety engineering investment if we are to achieve the goal of having the safest roads in the world. January 2010

2 3

How we Star Rate roads

Building a world free of high risk roads Roadsides

oad deaths and injuries are the result of a complex This approach to safety - in which there is fundamental Run-off road crashes into hazardous fixed objects at the side R interaction between the way people behave on the recognition that people are fallible, that we all make of the road play a part in about a quarter of all deaths on roads, the types of vehicles in use and the speed they are mistakes from time to time, that humans cannot tolerate rural main roads in Britain*. travelling, and the design of the roads themselves. Despite severe impacts and that risk can be systematically this complexity, creating a road system that is genuinely engineered out of aspects of our lives - can be applied to Trees, poles, steep embankments and cuttings can turn what safe is not rocket science. The well-established ‘safe our high risk roads. would be a minor crash into a killer. If these hazards can’t be system’ approach to road safety shows us how, borrowing removed, safety barriers can dramatically lower the risk. from lessons learnt in other aspects of our lives, we can This is not to say that all responsibility for road safety rests prevent death and serious injury. with the ‘built’ parts of the road system. It is absolutely crucial that drivers and vehicle occupants obey the Take the design of buildings for example. There would law and act with respect for the safety of themselves be outrage if instead of equipping precarious balconies and others. We all need to wear seat belts, remain and stairs with safety handrails, builders relied solely on sober while driving, travel within the speed limit and the hope that people would be careful enough not to reduce distractions such as mobile phones. But the fact slip by accident and fall to their death. Thankfully, such remains that along with safe road use and ongoing a ridiculous scenario does not occur. Engineers simply efforts to improve the safety of cars, there are substantial require that safety handrails are installed on all balconies. opportunities to improve the safety of our roads. End of story.

Medians

Head-on crashes account for about a fifth of all deaths on rural roads in Britain. Roads with wide medians and safety barriers can handle high traffic volumes with virtually no chance of a head-on crash. Research has consistently shown that medians and central safety barriers can reduce head-on crashes by as much as 90%.

However, poorly designed medians can in fact increase risk. In the same way that roadsides can be hazardous for cars that run-off the road to the left side, objects such as trees and poles in the centre of the road can present a hazard for cars that run off the road to the right.

Junctions

Crashes at junctions are one of the most common types of problem, accounting for about a quarter of all deaths on rural roads in Britain. When travel speeds are high, the Some roads are safer than others. Here’s why consequence of right-angle crashes at junctions can be brutal. he Road Safety Foundation has previously published colour-coded EuroRAP Risk Maps that draw on historical crash T data and illustrate that some roads experience higher rates of death and serious injury than others. The reports show The best junctions have motorway style on and off ramps that roads in the high-risk category are around 10 times more risky than those in the low-risk category*. (grade-separated), which physically separate traffic flowing along the main road from cross-traffic. Entering traffic merges. This report takes the next step. It shows how some roads provide greater protection to car occupants in the event of a Roundabouts are also low risk because they require all traffic crash than others. Nationwide, car occupants account for about half of all road deaths. to flow in the same direction. This reduces the chance of head-on and right-angle crashes. Roundabouts can also The Star Ratings are based the EuroRAP 1.0 Star Rating protocol that focuses on three key parts of a road: roadsides, dramatically reduce traffic speeds. medians and junctions. These elements, together with deaths to vulnerable road-users, are a factor in about 80% of all car occupant deaths in inter-urban rural roads in Britain. Motorways have relatively more rear-end shunts.

4 *Road Safety Foundation 2009, EuroRAP 2009 Results, Measuring and mapping the safety of Britain's Motorways and A roads. *OECD (1999), Safety Stategies for Rural Roads. Roadtransport and Intermodal 5 research report. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris 5

Road Casualties Great Britain (2008), Annual Report, Department for Transport, UK How we Star Rate roads Inspecting the Highways Agency network

he Star Ratings are produced by assigning a roadside, median and junction score to each 100 metre section T of road. The scores are based on detailed inspections and decades of research into the relative risk associated Inspecting the HA Network with road infrastructure features. As a simple example, the risk of death and serious injury in a run-off road crash is approximately halved on a road that has side safety barriers in place. Risk factors can be increased more than six-fold on roads where there are unprotected rigid objects such as trees within 7 metres of the road*. The scores are adjusted according to the speed of traffic on the road, such that the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death and serious injury.

Having assigned a score for each part of the road, they are then combined to form an overall score and Star Rat- ing. A 4-star road (the safest) is likely to have safety barriers at the side of the road and in the median, and grade- separated junctions. On this type of road, a safe driver in a safe car is significantly less likely to be killed or seriously injured in the event of a crash than if they were travelling on a 1-star road (the worst). Low scoring sections have hazardous fixed objects close to the road, frequent junctions and no head-on protection from oncoming traffic.

Median (Head-on protection)

he focus of this report is on inter-urban sections of the roads in England that are managed by the Highways Agency T (HA), known as the HA network. The roads that form this network reach across the entire country. They are the motorways and A roads of national importance. Other A roads in England are managed by local authorities. The HA network consists of:

• motorways • the major dual carriageway ‘A’ roads (trunk roads) Roadside Junction • the major single carriageway ‘A’ roads (trunk roads). (Side run-off protection) (Protection from side impacts) The HA network* is about 7,000km and represents 2% of all roads in England. These roads carry a third of all vehicle traffic and two-thirds of all freight in England. Motorways in England carry as many as 160,000 vehicles per day on the busiest sections; the busiest dual carriageways sections take 100,000 vehicles per day and more. Busy single carriageways have around 30,000 vehicles per day. The HA network experiences about 15% of all deaths in England. Star Rating The inspections of this network were carried out in 2007 and 2008 on behalf of the Road Safety Foundation by the German automobile club, ADAC, which has extensive experience of the EuroRAP Star Ratings and in inspecting European roads. The inspections made use of tailor-made software installed on a touch-sensitive laptop computer. As the inspectors travelled throughout the network, they recorded road infrastructure features in accordance with the EuroRAP protocol.

Following the completion of the inspections, the road inventory data was analysed using EuroRAP protocols by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) and Swedish consultants Sweco.

*Full data are available for 6,457km -- the analysis excludes motorway “stubs and spurs”, other motorway accesses or linking sections, rural routes through minor *Turner, B J Affum, M Tziotis and C Jurewicz (2009) Review of iRAP risk parameters. Unpublished project report. 6 settlements, urban sections, locations where road works were present and parts of the M5, A36, A3(M), A40, A66, A74 and A194(M). 7 Inspecting the Highways Agency network

Where the network scores well and poorly... Dual carriageway trunk roads (and why) Dual carriageway trunk roads also score well for head-on protection. 97% Star Rating for safety is of the highest standard.

Dual carriageways (see charts below), 50% 78% 62% like motorways, also score poorly on side run-off protection. 90% of dual carriageway does not reach the of all motorways are rated of dual carriageway ‘A’ roads of single carriageway ‘A’ roads highest standard. 3-star and half are 4-star. are 3-star. The remainder are are 2 star. Most of the remainder 4-star (20%) and 2-star (2%). are 3-star (35%) and less than 1% Many dual carriageway junctions is 1-star are split-level and are rated at the highest standard. But, for 24% of dual carriageways, junctions are at the Motorways Dual carriageway Single carriageway same level (“at-grade”), there are trunk ‘A’ roads trunk ‘A’ roads minor accesses and frequent lay-bys. These sections are not rated at the 50 % 50 % 20 % 2 % 78 % 3 % <1 % 62 % highest standard. 12 % 35 % 10 % <1% 46 % <1 % 23 %

Side run-off Junction

33 % 76 %

Figure 1: Distribution of total Star Ratings (smoothed to 3km, RPS1.0 Calculator)* Single carriageway trunk roads 4 Star 3 Star 2 Star 1 Star Single carriageway trunk roads lack the substantial protection offered to vehicle occupants on Motorways motorways and dual carriageways (charts below).

Overall Star Ratings (above) are comprised of side Side run-off protection is poor. 91% of single run-off, head-on and junction components. carriageway does not reach the highest standard.

Motorways score at the highest possible level for Single carriageway surface-level junctions do not rate head-on and intersection protection because their well – fewer than half (42%) of road sections rate at carriageways are separated by barriers and they the highest standard. Sections scoring high for this have split-level junctions. measure either have no junctions or have a reduced speed limit. But the level of side run-off protection is more variable (see chart below for this component), Protection from head-on injury is generally only with unprotected steep embankments and trees provided by road markings designed simply to relatively common. increase the distance between opposing traffic. Only 7% of single carriageway is rated at the highest level The 50% of motorways that do not score 4-star do so for head-on protection and this rating is achieved because of poor side run-off protection. A further only because low speed limits have been set on these 25% of motorway side run-off could also be improved sections. 7 % in someway. 8 % 51 % 6 % <1 % 8 % 3 % 30 % 9 % 63 % 25 % 42 % 52 % 42 %

Side run-off Side run-off Junction Head-on

32% 22 %

8 9 *100m sections with roadside protection or median protection recorded as settlement (e.g. village, or blank) were removed from the data before the distribution 9 of ratings was calculated since the focus of EuroRAP is on inter-urban roads. Percentages may not sum to 100 % because of rounding. Inspecting the Highways Agency network

Road sections with low average Star Ratings he tables below show the sections of road* that have the lowest average Star Rating in each road category – motorway, Half of our motorways score T dual carriageway and single carriageway.

The routes listed below can be checked for where improvements could be made, what countermeasures are available and what the likely cost-benefit opportunities are. This can be done by investigating the components of the total Star Rating on 4-star. The other half does the routes and using both local knowledge the safety history of the routes, and the experience and expertise of the road engineer. not reach the highest rating Motorways

he list below shows the sections of motorway with the lowest Star Ratings. They all score 3-star and are ranked showing T the least safe at the top. because side run-off is Each of the low-rated motorway links has intersections and head-on protection rated at the highest standard. Therefore the sections included in Table 1 have low total Star Ratings due to low side run-off protection ratings. inconsistent and lacking.

Table 1: Motorway sections with the lowest average 3-star rating

Road Description Length (km)

M40 M40 J15 to M42 J3A 17

M50 M5 J8 to M50 J4 34

M4 M4 J14 to J15 20

M11 M11 J6 to J8 23

M20 M20 J8 to J10 26

M45 M1 J17 to M45 J1 12

M25 M25 J20 to J22 12

M1 M1 J26 to J28 14

M54 M54 J0 to J7 34

M42 M42 J0 to J3 15

M3 M3 J3 to J5 22

In Tables 1-3 only sections >10km are listed.

*Tables 1-3 are based on the Star Ratings for each EuroRAP link given by the RPS1.0 calculator. Sections listed are formed from the same road network as that used in producing the EuroRAP Risk Rate Maps for the Trunk Road network. The average section length of this network is 26km. The Star Rating listed is therefore an average of the risk over each prescribed section. Correspondingly, the map on pages 18-19 shows the Star Rating over 100m lengths, smoothed to 3km, and therefore at a higher level of definition than in the list above. Star Ratings for lengths as short as 3km can therefore be identified from the maps. 10 11 Inspecting the Highways Agency network

Dual carriageway trunk roads

able 2 shows those lengths of dual carriageway scoring lowest, ranked by Star Rating. They all score 3-star with roads T with the lowest score at the top.

As with motorways, the low-rated dual carriageways mostly have low total star ratings due to low side protection ratings, but may also score low due to at-grade junctions, other low-quality accesses, lay-bys and central reservation gaps.

Table 2: Dual carriageway sections with the lowest average 3-star rating

Road Description Length (km) Deficiency S – Side run-off J – Junction

A419 Swindon – Cirencester 27 S, J Rigid roadside objects also lower the Star Rating A168 Dishforth – Thirsk 12 S, J

A23 M23 – Brighton 26 S, J

A19 Thirsk – Middlesbrough 35 S

A11 M11 J9A – A1304 Newmarket 19 S

A19 Billingham – A184 Boldon 42 S

A303 M3 - Beacon Hill (A338) 35 S, J

A34 M3 J9 – M4 J13 49 S

A42 M42 J11 – M1 J23a 23 S

A14 Ipswich - Felixstowe 10 S

A303 and A34 dual carriageway case studies

Complex junctions, where traffic crosses at the same level, lower the Star Rating

12 13 12 Inspecting the Highways Agency network Single carriageway trunk roads Single carriageways able 3 shows single (and some mixed single-dual) carriageway with the lowest average rating. They are all 2-star. T There were no single carriageways with a Star Rating averaged over the network of 1-star although some sub-section examples may be identified from the map.

Many of the sections listed here have a particularly poor head-on rating. This contributes to the overall rating being low. The low head-on score is often due to a high posted speed limit and traffic separated only by white lining. Similarly, have least protection frequent junctions, accesses and the presence of unprotected aggressive roadside objects will also mean that head-on and side run-off protection rates poorly. in run-off and Table 3: Single carriageway sections* with the lowest average 2-star rating

Road Description Length (km) Deficiency** junction layout and S – Side run-off J – Junction H – Head-on for overtaking. A5 Daventry - Rugby (A428) 16 S, J, H

A46 Alcester – M40 J15 21 S, J

A65*** Long Preston – M6 J36 42 S, J

A52 Bingham – Grantham 21 S, J, H

A49 Hereford - Ross-on-Wye 22 S, J

A49 Leominster - Shrewsbury 60 S, J

A5* Bletchley – Daventry 35 S, J

A46 Bingham – Newark 19 S, J

A5* M1 J9 – Bletchley 32 S, J

A64* York - Scarborough 59 S, J

A120* Braintree - Marks Tey 19 S, J

*Includes some short lengths dual carriageway, often at the start or end of the section

**Single carriageways by definition have little or no head-on protection. Those marked “H” had a particularly low head-on score and/or relatively high speed limit for the amount of median protection offered. Therefore the Star Rating could be improved by either installing median protection or by reducing speed limits, or a combination of both.

***Since the survey was completed the A65 has been transferred to the local highway authority and is therefore no longer part of the Highways Agency network.

14 15 A12

Inspecting the Highways Agency network 7

A 0

4 2

1 A

Norwich 0

Ipswich 2

2 A

1 A11 A

4 1 A2 7 0

A 0

4 9

A 9

5 2

A M20

1 Southend-on-Sea

A 1

1-star 2-star 3-star 4-star Unrated / roadworks Local authority roads National boundaries

1 M2 A

5 2

0 A

2 1

1 2

2 A A

1 M20 A

3 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 km A A11 M26

A14 M25 M11 Cambridge

M11 A2 6

7 7

4 2 A M25 A A14 M23

8 A23 2

A Peterborough LONDON

A180 A1 A1(M) M1

A1(M) 3 Brighton Kingston upon Hull

4 A 1

A 5

A A M25 M1 M25

3 4 6

M180 6 1

A A

4 A5

A M40

0 3

1 4

A A M4 A

2 7

M62 5

M1 2 A

Northampton

1 4

A A 1

A A

3 4

Portsmouth M18 A3(M) A road network in England A5 Reading Leicester M40 3

6 A1(M)

Nottingham

4 M62

A 3

5 M1

1 3

A 4 A

Middlesbrough 0

A M3

4 3

M45 3 M27

York A A 9 4 1 M18 3 A A

8 M69 © Road Safety Foundation. Source mapping Copyright HarperColl ins. 6

1 2 4

M1 5 3 A A Sunderland 9 5 4

1 A M4

A 6 A

6 0 5

M62

A 5 A 8

M1 3

M1 A A A42 A1(M) Oxford Coventry 9 M40

A1 M1 A46 Newcastle upon Tyne Newcastle upon EuroRAP Star Rating map for EuroRAP 1 6

A1(M) A 1

6 M42

1 A A

LEEDS 6

8 3

Derby 3 A303 A A A1 6 M42 4

Sheffield A the Highways Agency Strategic the Highways 1 3

This map may not be reproduced without the consent of Road Safety Foundation.

1 BIRMINGHAM A

A 8 9

1 Bournemouth

2 Southampton 5

A 4 6

M6 A

A 4 6 A M6 Toll 9 M42 6 62 A50

A A M62 9 7

6 M5 1

6 4 Prepared under licence from EuroRAP AISBL using protocols © Cop yright AISBL.

A 5 A Swindon

4 M4 A

Stoke- on-Trent

M60 3

A40 4 A 4 Poole

BRADFORD A

A449 36 M65 MANCHESTER

A 3 0 5

M54

M66 3 3

5 A A 6 M50 A M6 M5 0

M65 4 6 A 6 4 A A M61 M32

M6 A69

A5 M56 Gloucester

M62 49

M6 Wolverhampton

A 9 M49 4 A 4 9 A

M6 3

4 3

M58 A A Bristol

6 M55

0 4 5 A

A 8 7 A

5 3 M57 5

A A

5 4

5 A M5 0 5 A

8 5

5 A

A 0

5 M53

A30

6 A Blackpool M5 5 LIVERPOOL

A59

A38

3 A

8 3 A

Plymouth

3 A

16 17 16 Summary and conclusions Recommendations

ome 20,000 people will be killed or seriously injured on England’s trunk roads over the next decade if current death and he results from the survey have been mapped in 3km lengths showing where the ratings are high and low. They Sinjury rates continue. The cost of emergency services, hospitalisation, long term care, damage and other costs will Tshould be used in three ways: exceed £10bn well before the end of the decade. • to assess overall network standard and the business case for investment Serious road crashes are no longer tightly clustered at blackspots that can be treated after a short study of crash records. Most deaths are dispersed over the network on roads with layouts which are known from research to carry higher risks. This • to help, alongside crash data, identify priority routes and layouts for treatment EuroRAP Star Rating of trunk roads provides the first overview of the in-built risks in national roads using the same basis on • to help, alongside crash data, identify treatments which new cars are crash tested.

Around 7,000 km of the Highways Agency’s road network were inspected and safety rated using the EuroRAP 1-4 Star Rating scale. The scale measures the extent to which a car occupant is protected from severe injury at the posted speed limit Network Standard. once a crash occurs. Other leading countries have examined the costs and benefits of raising their network Star Rating. For example,

the Dutch government has pledged to raise its network to a minimum EuroRAP 3-star standard by 2020. However, Outside built-up areas, people die in three main ways: this has only been done following study of the high returns available from investment to reduce deaths and serious injury. The British government’s April 2009 consultation document on road safety strategy expresses concern that • head-on crashes evaluation of safety programmes is not carried out on the same basis as other investment.

• running off the road and striking aggressive objects It is recommended that the Highways Agency carry out an evaluation of the returns that can be made by raising the Star Rating and reducing the £1.2bn annual cost of crashes on its network on the basis of the savings over the • brutal side impacts at junctions economic life of the investment.

The Star Rating measures the protection provided by the road’s median (by its width, road markings or presence of a central barrier); by the junction types along the road; and by what a vehicle is likely to strike and where it will end up if it leaves the Identify Priority Routes and Layouts carriageway. It is recommended that: Although motorways have the highest speeds, the risks for drivers are the lowest of all British road types because protection standards are generally engineered to match the permitted speed. But English motorways are very heavily trafficked and • the Agency identifies priority routes and layouts for improvement where most deaths and serious injuries will so there is high exposure to any raised risk. The survey showed that half of English motorways achieved the maximum 4-star be saved for the money available rating. Nonetheless, because run-off protection is inconsistent or lacking, half of motorways achieved a 3-star rating. • the Road Safety Foundation prepares Crash Cost maps alongside Risk Rate and Star Rating maps. The survey shows trunk road dual carriageways are not as safe as motorways with approximately 80% achieving a 3-star rating. The run-off problems seen on dual carriageways were more widespread than on motorways. In addition, there were Identify Treatments junctions where side road traffic was permitted to cross high speed traffic. There were also many accesses and lay-bys where vehicles join busy high speed roads and the layouts do not have adequate acceleration lanes for safe merging. Dozens of potential countermeasure treatments include:

The survey showed that just a third of trunk single carriageways achieve a 3-star rating. With their lower speed limits, single • run-off protection using safety fencing and returning tree lines to safe distances carriageways can achieve a 3-star rating where there are well laid out junctions and good run-off protection. Some leading countries are now achieving 4-star single carriageways, and reporting serious crash rates lower than motorways, by the • providing protected right-turns at busy junctions innovation of adding wire-rope protection in the median. • ensuring that lay-bys meet standards This report shows the differences in safety rating between different types of trunk road. It shows where, how and why Star Rating varies between the same road type. It provides a new platform from which the Highways Agency can lead Britain’s • ensuring edge-of-carriageway marking and shoulder sealing road authorities in raising infrastructure safety. It can help achieve the government’s proposed goal for the next road safety • use of lower-cost split-level junctions types (“compact grade-separation”) strategy – to make Britain’s roads “the safest in the world”.

• trialling innovative 4-star single carriageway types

The Star Ratings, alongside crash and other data, can assist in the detailed study and evaluation of specific road sections and layouts. Detailed recommendations have been made to incorporate Star Ratings in the Agency’s routine assessment tools.

It is recommended that:

• the assessment tools are piloted in the Highways Agency’s areas over the next two years

• programmes are developed so safety is systematically implemented during routine maintenance and rehabilitation cycles.

18 19 Acknowledgements Appendix

he Star Rating of the HA network was financially supported by the Highways Agency. The Agency has also been involved Tin a trial of the Road Protection Score in south-east England and in work producing guidance for engineers in the use of Motorway and trunk road network casualties 2008 the techniques described here.

n 2008 there were 340 deaths, 1,713 serious injuries and 17,463 slight injuries on the Highways Agency network in England. IThese 19,516 casualties were involved in 12,566 accidents involving 26,943 vehicles. There were 141 fatal and 776 serious casualties on motorways and 199 fatal and 937 serious on A roads. Single vehicle collisions with roadside objects, The inspection of the English trunk road and motorway network was undertaken by the German motoring club ADAC, with data processing by Swedish consultants Sweco. British motorways 2008

Table 5: Single vehicle collisions with roadside objects

Object hit Fatal Serious Slight All

Road sign/Traffic signal 1 15 30 46

Lamp post 3 7 33 43

Tree 9 35 105 149 The analysis of results, a matching of Road Protection Score and crash data, and an assessment of the methodology, was undertaken by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory). The technical report from the study produced by J Martin, D Lynam Other 26 130 856 1012 and L Crinson (2009). EuroRAP Road Protection Score, Highways Agency Network Stage II Results, TRL Report RPN 296. None 13 76 301 390

Total 52 263 1325 1640

Source: Department for Transport (2009) Road Casualties Great Britain

The project was supervised by Dr Steve Lawson and James Bradford of the Road Safety Foundation using protocols developed by the European Road Assessment Programme www.eurorap.org. The Road Safety Foundation is especially grateful to Raphael Dziub and Marcus Thiel of ADAC for conducting the inspections and to David Lynam, formerly Chief Scientist TRL, and Jonathan Turley of the Highways Agency for special help and advice.

The views expressed here are those of the Road Safety Foundation and EuroRAP AISBL and do not necessarily those of any other individual or entity.

Photos: page 5 top - Cheshire County Council; page 9 both - Highways Agency (Crown Copyright); page 14-15 - Sue Adair; back cover - Highways Agency (Crown Copyright).

20 21 20 About

Road Safety Foundation

The Foundation was established as a permanent legacy of the 1986 European Road Safety Year as Britain launched its first national casualty reduction target. The charity was initially called the AA Foundation for Road Safety Research in recognition of its major donor at the time. It was modelled on the successful charity, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, founded in the USA by the American Automobile Association.

The objective of the Road Safety Foundation is to carry out or procure research into all factors affecting the safe use of public roads.

The key programme of the Road Safety Foundation is the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP), itself founded as a non-profit association by the Foundation.

Highways Agency

The Highways Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport, and is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport.

EuroRAP

The European Road Assessment Programme - EuroRAP AISBL - is an international not-for profit association (Association internationale sans but lucratif) registered in Belgium. Its members are motoring organisations, national and regional road authorities, and experts who have been elected because of the special contribution they have made to EuroRAP.

EuroRAP is a sister programme to EuroNCAP, the independent crash test programme that star rates new cars for the crash protection they provide to passengers and pedestrians. EuroNCAP demonstrates that well-designed crash protection can make family cars safer. Similarly, EuroRAP shows how roads can be made safer, so that the car and road work together to protect life.

22 23 22 “The Highways Agency in England is the UK’s largest road authority. It is the first in Britain to offer its entire network up to independent EuroRAP ‘star rating’ for safety and to consider the results in guiding further improvements. It is to be congratulated for this openness. It will permit national network performance to be tracked alongside leading countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden during the decade ahead, as well as against dozens of other countries worldwide”.

50% of all motorway length on the HA network is rated 4-star and 50% is 3-star.

78% of all dual carriageway ‘A’ road length on the HA network is rated 3-star, with the remainder rated 4-star (20%) and 2-star (2%).

Almost two-thirds (62%) of single carriageway ‘A’ road length on the HA network is rated 2-star, with most of the remainder 3-star (35%). Less than 1% is rated 1-star.

Published by the Road Safety Foundation

Road Safety Foundation The Road Safety Foundation is a UK registered charity. Registered Worting House in England and Wales as a company limited by guarantee No. Basingstoke 02069723. Registered UK Charity No. 295573. Hampshire RG23 8PX Registered Office: 60 Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DS. UK. UK

Email [email protected]

Telephone +44 (0) 1256 345598