Citation

Ashish, Mhaske SY. J. Road Safety 2023; 34(4): 42-50.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Australasian College of Road Safety)

DOI

10.33492/JRS-D-23-209291

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

One of the proactive preventive strategies for the global issue of road crashes is the Road Safety Audit (RSA). There are many advantages to using RSA, however, country-specific regulations often apply when it comes to conducting RSAs. The goal of this study was to compare the content of regulations in a sample of seven countries. Crucial indicators were examined and compared. The term 'RSA' was defined differently in each set of guidelines. Different project phases in various nations required the RSA methodology. The contents and coverage of the accompanying checklists or forms also varied. The documents unevenly stressed the team's needs or the auditors' qualifications. The legal liability issues received no attention from three of the seven guideline publications. The documents of two countries lacked any examples of RSA reports or case studies. The documents of some countries placed a strong focus on certain criteria but fell short in other areas. There was no RSA guideline document which may be referred to as best practice that accounted for the local circumstances and requirements. Improvements to guideline documents are suggested. This study, updated as of October 2023, will assist the road safety community, including transport officials, world banks, highway practitioners, road safety auditors, policymakers, urban planners and research scholars.

Key Findings

-RSA guidelines must include and clarify the audit approach for all stages and all types of roadways.
-RSA guidelines should cover legal liability issues.
-Flowcharts for all activities give a comprehensive understanding of the audit process.
-Checklists for different audit stages must be included in all guidelines.
-Specimen case studies should be provided, preferably as appendices.

Language: en