AP-R519-16 Guidance On Median and Centreline Treatments To Reduce Head-On Casualties

Research Report
AP-519-16
Guidance on Median and Centreline

Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties
Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

Prepared by
Publisher
David Beck
Austroads Ltd.
Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Project Manager
Alex Duerden
Abstract
About Austroads
This report presents a compendium of local and overseas practice

and experience in minimising the risk and severity of head-on
crashes. It is intended to assist road safety practitioners identify
effective actions that can be taken to reduce the incidence and
severity of such crashes, with a focus on median and centreline
treatments.
Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road

transport and traffic agencies.
In addition to discussing well-proven methods to address head-on

crashes, this report also presents some innovative treatments for
which there is currently insufficient data to confirm their benefits, but
which may be effective in reducing head-on crashes where the crash
history does not justify the expense of applying more established
treatments.
Austroads purpose is to support our member organisations to

deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
transport research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the design,
construction and management of the road network and its
associated infrastructure.
Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
consistency for road users.
Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
executive representatives from each of its eleven member
organisations:
Keywords
Head-on crash, centreline treatment, median treatment, road safety
ISBN 978-1-925451-13-9
Austroads Project No. SS1959
Austroads Publication No. AP-R519-16
Publication date June 2016
Pages 72
Austroads 2016
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Department of State Growth Tasmania
Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and

Regional
Australian Local Government Association
Roads Corporation Victoria

Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
Main Roads Western Australia
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
South Australia
Department of Transport Northern Territory
Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian
Capital Territory
New Zealand Transport Agency.
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process
without the prior written permission of Austroads.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
This report presents a compendium of local and overseas practice and experience in minimising the risk and
severity of head-on crashes. It is intended to assist road safety practitioners identify effective actions that can
be taken to reduce the incidence and severity of such crashes, with a focus on median and centreline
treatments.
While the body discusses road engineering measures that address the safe roads and speeds pillars of the
Safe System framework, some details on methods to address the safe vehicles and road users pillars are
included in Appendix B.
In addition to discussing well-proven methods to address head-on crashes, this report also presents some
innovative treatments for which there is currently insufficient data to confirm their benefits. Nonetheless,
these methods are expected to be effective in reducing head-on crashes, and may be of benefit in situations
where the site crash history does not justify the expense associated with more established treatments.
Opportunities for further research to confirm benefits of specific treatments have been highlighted.
Appendix A presents an at-a-glance overview of the road engineering based treatments discussed earlier in
this report, including crash modification factors, indicative costs and typical characteristics that may inform
the decision to adopt this treatment. Where information has yet to be obtained or is limited, the table also
identifies areas of research that could benefit our understanding of road safety solutions.
As with all Austroads guidance documents, this report serves to present an overview of the available
treatment options only. The reader is advised to consult with the relevant local jurisdiction for the crash
modification factors, costs and treatment lives used for local cost-benefit analysis methods, as well as any
specific policies or design specifications pertaining to this treatment for that jurisdiction. The reader is also
advised to consult with the manufacturer for any product-specific requirements.
Austroads 2016 | page i
Contents
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Key Contributing Factors .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Intent of the Report ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Structure of this Report .................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Crash Modification and Reduction Factors ...................................................................................... 3
1.6 Approved Safety Barrier Products .................................................................................................... 4
2.
Centreline Treatments ........................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Standard Dividing Linemarkings ...................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Raised Profile Centrelines ................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 Raised Profile Centrelines and Edgelines ...................................................................................... 10
2.4 Enhanced Pavement Markings ...................................................................................................... 11
2.5 Raised Reflective Pavement Markers ............................................................................................ 13
2.6 Internally Illuminated Pavement Markers ....................................................................................... 14
3.
Median Treatments .............................................................................................................................. 16

3.1 Painted Median .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Pavement Bars ............................................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Wide Centreline Treatment ............................................................................................................ 19
3.4 Raised Median ............................................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Barrier Kerbing on Median ............................................................................................................. 24
3.6 Median Barriers .............................................................................................................................. 25
3.6.1
Rigid Median Barriers ........................................................................................................ 27
3.6.2
Semi-rigid Median Barriers ................................................................................................ 29
3.6.3
Wire Rope Median Safety Barriers .................................................................................... 30
3.6.4
2+1 Roads ......................................................................................................................... 33
3.6.5
Moveable Barriers ............................................................................................................. 35
3.6.6
Motorcyclist Concerns with Median Barriers ..................................................................... 36
3.6.7
Median Barrier Terminal Treatments................................................................................. 37
3.7 Flexible Bollards ............................................................................................................................. 37

3.8 Median Turning Bays ..................................................................................................................... 39
3.9 Median Design ............................................................................................................................... 40
3.9.1
Median Width..................................................................................................................... 40
3.9.2
Cross-section..................................................................................................................... 41
3.9.3
Pavement Edge Drop-off ................................................................................................... 41
3.9.4
Median Shoulder ............................................................................................................... 42
3.10 Median Glare Treatments............................................................................................................... 44

3.11 Median Plantations ......................................................................................................................... 45
4.
Other Road Infrastructure Solutions ................................................................................................. 47

4.1 Speed Management ....................................................................................................................... 47
4.2 Intermittent Overtaking Lanes ........................................................................................................ 47
4.3 Improved Pavement Surface .......................................................................................................... 49
4.4 Shoulder Treatments ...................................................................................................................... 49
Austroads 2016 | page ii
4.5 Improved Roadside Forgiveness ................................................................................................... 50

4.6 Curve Delineation and Warning ..................................................................................................... 50
4.7 Addressing Wrong-way Movements .............................................................................................. 52
5.
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 55
References ................................................................................................................................................... 56
Summary of Treatments ................................................................................................. 63
Other Countermeasures to Address Head-on Crashes............................................... 68
Tables
Table 2.1:
Table 2.2:
Table 3.1:
Table 3.2:
Table 3.3:
Table 3.4:
Table 3.5:
Table 3.6:
Table 4.1:
Summary of CRFs and CMFs (bracketed) sourced from various references for raised
profile centrelines ........................................................................................................................... 9
Summary of crash reduction and modification (bracketed) factors for application of raised
profile centrelines and edgelines .................................................................................................11
FSI crash ratio for safety barrier solutions ...................................................................................27
Summary of crash reduction and modification (bracketed) factors for WRMB treatment
of head-on, single-vehicle and FSI crashes extracted from selected studies ..............................32
Crash modification factors for crashes of varying severity extracted from selected studies .......32
Crash modification factors for full-access controlled medians based on width ...........................40
Crash modification factors for partial-access controlled or no-access medians based
on width ........................................................................................................................................41
CMFs for varying the median shoulder width on freeways ..........................................................43
Summary of various curve delineation treatments and respective crash reduction and
modification factors ......................................................................................................................52
Figures
Figure 2.1:
Figure 2.2:
Figure 2.3:
Figure 2.4:
Figure 2.5:
Figure 2.6:
Figure 2.7:
Figure 2.8:
Figure 2.9:
Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.3:
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
Figure 3.6:
Figure 3.7:
Figure 3.8:
Figure 3.9:
Figure 3.10:
Figure 3.11:
Figure 3.12:
Figure 3.13:
Figure 3.14:
Figure 3.16:
Examples of standard dividing linemarkings .................................................................................. 5

Close view of raised profile linemarking ......................................................................................... 7
Example of raised profile centreline ............................................................................................... 8
Raised profile centreline and edgeline treatment.........................................................................10
Installation of road marking tape ..................................................................................................12
Centreline RRPMs during daylight ...............................................................................................13
Centreline RRPMs illuminated at night-time by headlights ..........................................................13
Close view of solar-powered centreline IIPM ...............................................................................14
IIPMs illuminating over a long distance ........................................................................................15
Painted median on curve .............................................................................................................16
Painted median on straight section ..............................................................................................16
Typical layout of painted median..................................................................................................17
Example of pavement bars in median ..........................................................................................18
Examples of wide centreline treatments ......................................................................................19
Layout of painted median outline with raised profile linemarking ................................................20
Wide centrelines highlighted by RRPMs and coloured linemarkings respectively ......................20
Example of wide centreline designed to allow for overtaking for both flows of traffic
and one flow of traffic respectively ...............................................................................................21
Paved raised median ...................................................................................................................22
Grassed raised median providing shelter for signs and lighting ..................................................22
Drivers using raised median as transit lane on congested road ..................................................23
Example of median barrier kerbing ..............................................................................................24
Further example of median barrier kerbing ..................................................................................24
Deflection of errant vehicle by wire rope median barrier .............................................................26
Linear delineation of concrete barrier on a curve.........................................................................28
Austroads 2016 | page iii
Figure 3.17:
Figure 3.18:
Figure 3.19:
Figure 3.20:
Figure 3.21:
Figure 3.22:
Figure 3.23:
Figure 3.24:
Figure 3.25:
Figure 3.26:
Figure 3.27:
Figure 3.28:
Figure 3.29:
Figure 3.30:
Figure 3.31:
Figure 3.32:
Figure 3.33:
Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:
Figure 4.5:
W-beam barrier along wide median .............................................................................................29

W-beam barrier along narrow median .........................................................................................29
WRMB in wide centreline .............................................................................................................30
Overlapping of WRMB systems ...................................................................................................31
Typical 2+1 road configuration .....................................................................................................33
2+1 roadway.................................................................................................................................34
Typical 2+1 road cross-section ....................................................................................................34
Images of moveable barrier being transitioned, including over Auckland Harbour Bridge ..........35
Examples of motorcycle barrier post protection systems ............................................................37
Flexible bollards on motorway......................................................................................................38
Flexible bollards that may later be replaced with WRMB ............................................................38
Diagram of operation of median turning bays ..............................................................................39
Example of median turning bay....................................................................................................39
Examples of uneven pavement edge drop-off .............................................................................42
Example of paved median shoulder on highway .........................................................................43
Antiglare screens .........................................................................................................................44
Median plantation .........................................................................................................................45
Roadway featuring intermittent overtaking lanes .........................................................................48
Delineation of curve with CAMs ...................................................................................................51
Delineation and warning of curve with vehicle activated signage and chevron board .................51
Drive on left in Australia signage used in the Barossa Valley ....................................................53
Wrong way/go back signage at motorway exit (inset shows greater detail) ................................54
Austroads 2016 | page iv
1. Introduction
1.1
Background
The Safe System approach to road safety has been adopted in Australia and New Zealand. This approach
aims to provide a road system that protects compliant road users from death and serious injury. A Safe
System approach also recognises that road users are fallible and will continue to make mistakes, but that
they should not be penalised with death or serious injury when they do. Part 1 of the Austroads Guide to
road safety (Austroads 2013) discusses the Safe System approach in detail.
In part, the Safe System approach requires (Australian Transport Council 2011):
Designing, constructing, and maintaining a road system (roads, vehicles and operating requirements) so
that forces on the human body generated in crashes are generally less than those resulting in fatal or
debilitating injury.
Improving roads and roadsides to reduce the risk of crashes and minimise harm. Measures for higher
speed roads include:
segregating traffic
providing and maintaining forgiving roadsides
providing clear driver guidance.
Managing speeds, taking into account the risks on different parts of the road system. In areas with large
numbers of vulnerable road users or substantial collision risk, speed management supplemented by road
and roadside treatments is a key strategy for limiting crashes.
The term head-on crash refers to an event in which a vehicle departs from its laneway into opposing traffic,
such that any portion of the leading edge of its vehicle strikes any portion of the leading edge of an opposing
vehicle. This is one of the most severe crash types that may occur. It is therefore important within a Safe
System that practitioners are aware of measures available to reduce the incidence and severity of this crash
type.
In an average year, there are about 74 fatal head-on crashes in urban environments and 264 in rural
environments in Australia and New Zealand combined (Austroads 2014a; Austroads 2010a).
Head-on crashes in rural areas are generally high-speed crashes that result in serious injury outcomes.
Whilst new vehicles are designed and tested to ensure head-on collisions are survivable at speeds of up to
70 km/h, in real life scenarios, the combined relative speeds in a rural crash can exceed 200 km/h. In
interactions between light and heavy vehicles, much of the impact energy from this relative speed will be
transferred to the light vehicle. The high severity of this crash type is demonstrated by their high fatality rate
19% of head-on crashes occurring on rural roads in Australia and New Zealand result in a fatality
(Austroads 2010a).
1.2
Key Contributing Factors
A high proportion of head-on crashes occurs on or near curves, when a vehicle crosses the centreline of the
road to collide with an oncoming vehicle or object located on the edge of the carriageway. This is an issue
particularly when the operating speed is higher than the design speed for a curve, requiring drivers to reduce
their speed. Complex curves, featuring more than one curve in close proximity, are also overrepresented at
head-on crash sites. Centreline encroachments on left curves are generally a result of excessive speeds or
avoidance of roadside hazards, whilst on right curves encroachments are generally due to drivers cutting the
corner or straightening on the curve if they consider it safe to do so (Austroads 2010a; Austroads 2014a).
A high proportion of head-on crashes on rural roads occur in wet conditions (19% in Australia and 29% in
New Zealand).
Austroads 2016 | page 1
On rural roads, the following road design characteristics have been identified as common features of sites
with high head-on crash rates (Austroads 2010a):
poor sight distance for overtaking due to horizontal and vertical curves
unsealed or partially sealed shoulders
inappropriate speed limits
poor curve delineation
insufficient or unclear advisory/warning signs, such as for curves, advisory speeds, intersections, etc.
insufficient or poorly maintained raised reflective pavements markers (RRPMs) delineating the road and
vehicle lanes.
On urban roads, the following road design characteristics have been identified as common features of sites
with high head-on crash rates (Austroads 2014a):
steep downhill gradients leading into curves

limited sight distance both at intersections (signalised and unsignalised) and mid-block
presence of visually imposing or unforgiving roadside furniture that may encourage drivers to travel
further from the road edge, reducing the buffer from opposing traffic.
Poor coordination of horizontal and vertical alignments are also a key contributing factor to vehicle lossof-control, which can result in head-on crashes (Austroads 2015a).
Heavy vehicles are involved in a notable proportion of rural head-on crashes (17% in Australia and 10% in
New Zealand). Head-on crashes are the second most common crash type for heavy vehicles on rural roads
in Australia, and the most common crash type for heavy vehicles on rural roads in New Zealand (Austroads
2009c). These crashes result in more severe outcomes, with 28% of such crashes on rural roads resulting in
a fatality, compared to 19% for all rural head-on crashes (Austroads 2010a).
1.3
Intent of the Report
This report presents a compendium of local and overseas practice and experience in minimising the risk and
severity of head-on crashes. It is intended to provide guidance to practitioners on effective actions that can
be taken to reduce the incidence and severity of head-on crashes, with a focus on road engineering
measures, particularly median and centreline treatments.
Median and centreline treatments are generally effective by providing:
a visual separation of vehicles (e.g. centreline markings)

a kinetic deterrent to vehicles crossing the median (e.g. raised profile linemarkings)
a physical deterrent to discourage vehicles from crossing the median (e.g. raised median)
a physical obstruction to prevent vehicles crossing the median (e.g. median barriers).
Some of the treatments discussed will also assist in reducing other crash types, and so application of these
treatments can have additional benefits to their ability to address head-on crashes. Alternately, some
treatments, whilst addressing head-on crashes, may create other unintended road safety issues. The
practitioner is advised to carefully consider what implications, whether positive or negative, a particular
treatment may have.
The reader is advised to consult with the relevant local jurisdiction for specific details relating to a treatment,
such as crash modification factors, costs and treatment lives used for local cost-benefit analysis methods, as
well as any specific policies or design specifications pertaining to this treatment for that jurisdiction. The
reader is also advised to consult with the supplier for any product-specific requirements.
1.4
Structure of this Report
The report is comprised of six sections, as follows:
Section 1 (this section) presents the background to the Austroads project and outlines the scope and
intent of the report.
Section 2 presents local and international experience in using centreline treatments to address the
incidence and severity of head-on crashes.
Section 3 presents local and international experience in using median treatments to address the
incidence and severity of head-on crashes.
Section 4 discusses other road engineering based countermeasures to address head-on crashes,
included speed-based treatments.
Section 5 provides the concluding comments, including the key findings and limitations of the research,
as well as identification of areas for future study in the area of treating head-on crashes.
An at-a-glance overview of all centreline, median and other road engineering based countermeasures is
included in Appendix A.
This section also includes indicative costs for treatments. As can be seen, many of these costs vary
significantly between jurisdictions. Costs are a guide only to assist in comparing treatments. Practitioners are
advised to consult with their local jurisdiction for more accurate cost estimates when preparing a cost-benefit
analysis. Costs may vary based on the jurisdiction, project scope, site location and other environmental
factors.
Having considered road and speed-based treatments in the report, Appendix B has been included to
consider the other pillars of the Safe System, namely vehicle and behavioural based countermeasures.
Whilst these are not road-based treatments, and therefore not included in the main body of the report, it is
important for road safety practitioners to be aware of other solutions available within the Safe System.
1.5
Crash Modification and Reduction Factors
In discussing treatments, this report aims to identify the respective crash modification and reduction factors.
According to the Austroads Glossary of Terms (Austroads 2015b):
The crash modification factor (CMF) is a representation of the relative change in crash frequency that
occurs due to a specific change in the road or its immediate environments.
The crash reduction factor (CRF) is an indication of the expected percentage reduction in road crashes
following the introduction of a countermeasure.
To illustrate, a CRF of 60% would suggest that 40% of crashes would remain. The CMF would therefore be
represented as 0.4. A treatment with a negligible CRF would have a CMF of 1.0, indicating that the same
crash rate would remain after application of the treatment. A negative CRF of 20% indicates a 20%
increase in crashes, so would be indicated as a CMF of 1.2.
CRFs and CMFs are general indications only, and may vary due to a range of factors. All values presented in
this report have been rounded to the nearest 5%. Presenting factors with greater accuracy would potentially
mislead the reader as to the accuracy of the research and its applicability to individual scenarios. These
values have been presented as a guide only, and practitioners should consult their local jurisdictions for
pertinent CMF values when preparing cost-benefit analyses.
Section 4.6 of the Austroads Guide to road safety (Austroads 2015c) provides guidance on how to determine
the CRFs for applying multiple treatments at one site.
Most research reviewed for this project reported only the crash reductions for all crash types combined, and
did not consider reductions for head-on crashes explicitly. Where crash reductions are for head-on crashes
in particular, this has been indicated.
1.6
Approved Safety Barrier Products
Safety barrier products referenced in this publication are included as examples of treatments used in
different road environments and countries. Contact your local road agency for products approved for use in
your jurisdiction.
2. Centreline Treatments
2.1
Standard Dividing Linemarkings
Delineation is designed to visually guide drivers safely along the roadway by influencing their choice of
position and speed. When delineation is lacking or inadequate, the driving task becomes more difficult, and
drivers have a greater chance of leaving their travel lane. If the lane departure is to the right, the nominal
centreline of the road is crossed and a head-on crash may occur. Drivers may also decide to conduct an
overtaking manoeuvre (either permissible or illegal), which on two-lane roads will require all or part of the
vehicle crossing into the opposing lane.
The Australian Standard, AS 1742.2-2009 covers the design of centreline markings (referred to as dividing
lines) for use in Australia1. The markings may comprise a:
1. double two-way line, consisting of two continuous lines side by side, indicating that crossing of the line is
prohibited for both travel directions
2. double one-way barrier line, featuring a continuous line beside a broken line, indicating that crossing of
the line is permitted only for traffic travelling on the left of the broken line
3. single barrier line, featuring a single continuous line, indicating that no overtaking is permitted, but
crossing by traffic entering or leaving the roadway is permitted
4. dividing line, featuring a single broken line, serving to separate traffic, but allowing crossing of the line for
traffic travelling in either direction.
Figure 2.1 shows examples of each dividing linemarking.
These linemarkings and the associated rules are referenced in the Australian Road Rules and the New
Zealand Road Code. Legislation in all jurisdictions in the two countries requires compliance with these rules,
which are enforceable by the police and which may have a bearing on the outcome of civil actions. In many
jurisdictions, emerging road regulations allow vehicles to cross the centreline, where it is safe to do so, to
enable a minimum 1 metre passing distance (clearance) to cyclists. The safety impact of this recent
development will need to be monitored over time.
Dividing lines are not generally used on sealed roads of less than 5.5 m width, given that in practice the
drivers of most cars and larger vehicles would have no choice but to straddle the centreline.
Figure 2.1:
Examples of standard dividing linemarkings
(a) Double two-way line
(b) Double one-way barrier line
Each jurisdiction is likely to provide their own policy on how to apply AS 1742.2-2009 locally.
(c) Single barrier line
(d) Dividing line
Source: ARRB Group.
When the traffic volume is very low, e.g. under 300 vehicles per day (vpd) on rural roads, and under 2500
vpd on urban roads, dividing lines may be omitted. Dividing lines are also recommended for use under the
following conditions (AS 1742.2-2009):
frequent horizontal or vertical curves

substandard curves
areas subject to fog
minor road approaches to intersections with STOP or Give Way signs
curves or crests in residential streets
where crash records suggest a need
to help ensure continuity of an arterial road
where there are significant volumes of night-time or tourist traffic.
Lines used within the central third of the road are generally preferred to be 100 mm wide, though may be as
narrow as 80 mm (AS 1742.2-2009). The wider the linemarkings, and the greater the distance between
double linemarkings (known as the separation), the greater the separation between vehicles. Double
linemarkings with wide separations can be used as a distinct treatment, known as the wide centreline
treatment, discussed in Section 3.3 (Austroads 2010e).
Crash modification
The New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) (2015b) suggests a 15%
reduction in head-on crashes (CMF of 0.85) for the installation of barrier lines (i.e. both providing delineation
and barring overtaking).
Austroads (2010d) indicates that centrelines can reduce total crashes on a road by 30% (CMF of 0.70). By
preventing overtaking as well as, barrier lines and double two-way lines have a higher crash reduction of
35% (CMF of 0.65).
Treatment life
Austroads (2010f) suggests a treatment life of three years can be applied for standard linemarking systems.
However, the precise rate of wear at a location is unknown and can be accelerated at certain locations by
traffic, roadside activities, weather and other factors.
2.2
Raised Profile Centrelines
Raised profile centrelines (also known as audible centrelines, audio-tactile centrelines or centreline rumble
strips) are raised or grooved patterns placed on or near the roadway centreline. Other audible centrelines
can be achieved using grooved patterns on or near the centreline. Figure 2.2 shows a close-up view of the
raised profile linemarking, whilst Figure 2.3 shows raised profile linemarking located along a centreline.
Such features alert drivers when their wheels reach the centreline by emitting a humming sound and
vibrations that are clearly distinguishable from the normal driving experience. As they alert drivers when their
vehicle strays towards opposing traffic, raised profile centrelines are most effective at addressing crashes
related to driver inattention, distraction or drowsiness (Bahar, Wales & Longtin-Nobel 2001).
Figure 2.2:
Close view of raised profile linemarking
Source: AllState LineMarking Australia (n.d.).
As well as providing a clearly audible signal, centreline rumble strips improve visibility of the centreline
(especially in wet conditions) and discourage drivers illegally crossing the centreline, such as for overtaking
(Torbic et al. 2009; Neuman et al. 2003).
Raised profile centrelines may be installed without any changes to the roadway cross-section, thereby
serving as a relatively fast and low-cost measure (Neuman et al. 2003). They have been found to be
traversable by motorcyclists without causing loss-of-stability (Jamieson et al. 2013).
The literature reviewed has determined potential operational issues with raised profile centrelines. The
implications of these concerns will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis:
additional maintenance requirements (Neuman et al. 2003)

high noise levels (Neuman et al. 2003)
potential for water ponding if not adequately drained (Bahar, Wales & Longtin-Nobel 2001)
potential for presenting a visual obstruction to overtaking manoeuvres (Neuman et al. 2003).
Figure 2.3:
Example of raised profile centreline
Source: ARRB Group.
Practitioners are advised to consider cyclist movements when installing raised profile centrelines since the
treatment may encourage drivers to travel closer to the shoulder, reducing the lateral distance between
vehicles and any cyclists travelling on or close to the shoulder (Neuman et al. 2003; Kar & Weeks 2009).
To mitigate the noise levels associated with this treatment, whilst still ensuring an appropriate audible signal
to the driver, Torbic et al. (2009) recommend a lower sound level in built-up areas, of
612 dBA in the occupant compartment, compared to 1015 dBA away from residential areas. Noise levels
vary depending on the design of the rumble strips. Practitioners should check with the manufacturer to
confirm that noise levels are appropriate for the particular road design.
Crash modification
Table 2.1 summarises a number of CRFs and CMFs for the installation of raised profile centrelines, sourced
from various references. As can be seen, this treatment type both reduces the incidence and severity of
head-on crashes. It is suggested that the severity of head-on crashes is reduced as drivers are alerted to
undertake a degree of emergency braking and/or steering with the effect of reducing the impact speed and
the extent of the impact area.
In addition to the information provided in Table 2.1, Hirasawa et al. (2006) found that raised profile
centrelines reduced head-on crashes by 55%, fatalities by 70%, serious injuries by 30% and minor injuries
by 25% (CMFs of 0.45, 0.30, 0.70 and 0.75 respectively). These results indicate a greater success at
reducing fatal crashes compared to reducing FSI crashes as presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1:
Summary of CRFs and CMFs (bracketed) sourced from various references for raised profile
centrelines
Environment
Head-on (all)
FSI(1) head-on
All crashes
All FSI crashes
Range from all

studies below
2055%
(0.450.80)
2565%
(0.350.75)
915%
(0.850..91)
1030%
(0.700.90)
Austroads
(2010d)
15% (0.85)
Sayed, deLeur
and Pump (2010)
30% (0.70)
Kar and Weeks

(2009)
25% (0.75)
50% (0.50)
30% (0.70)
Torbic et al.
(2009)
Urban two-lane
40% (0.60)
65% (0.35)
Torbic et al.
(2009)
Rural two-lane
30% (0.70)
45% (0.55)
10% (0.90)
10% (0.90)
55% (0.45)
Rural two-lane
20% (0.80)
25% (0.75)
15% (0.85)
15% (0.85)
25% (0.75)
10% (0.90)
15% (0.85)
Hirasawa et al.
(2006)
Harkey et al.
(2008)
Persaud, Retting
and Lyon (2004)
1
Fatal and serious injury.
Note: Crash reduction for FSI crashes is an important focus for the Safe System approach.
Where raised profile centrelines are installed on a road already featuring raised profile edgelines, the headon crash reduction benefits are even greater. Olson, Sujka and Manchas (2013) reported the following crash
reductions:
Crossover/head-on crashes
65% reduction in head-on crashes (CMF of 0.35)
25% reduction in FSI head-on crashes (CMF of 0.75)
Other crash types
10% reduction in overall crashes (CMF of 0.90)
25% reduction in FSI crashes (CMF of 0.75)
10% increase in run-off-road to the left crashes (CMF of 1.10)
negligible impact on FSI run-off-road to the left crashes (CMF of 1.00).
See the following Section 2.3 for further details on the performance of raised profile centrelines with
edgelines.
Treatment life
Austroads (2010f) suggests a treatment life of five years for raised profile centrelines.
2.3
Raised Profile Centrelines and Edgelines
Olson, Sujka and Manchas (2013) reports that installing raised profile centrelines in concert with raised
profile edgelines (Figure 2.4) was a particularly effective, low-cost method to address lane-departure (i.e.
head-on and run-off-road) crashes on two-lane rural roads.
Figure 2.4:
Raised profile centreline and edgeline treatment
Source: Transport for NSW (TfNSW), private communication, January 2015.
Crash modification
Whilst Olson, Sujka and Manchas et al. (2013) report that raised profile edgelines led to a slight increase in
the rate of head-on crashes, when installed with raised profile centrelines, both run-off-road and head-on
crashes were reduced.
Table 2.2 summarises a number of crash reduction and modification factors for the installation of raised
profile centrelines and edgelines together, sourced from various references. As can be seen, this treatment
type reduces both the incidence and severity of head-on crashes. It is suggested that the severity of head-on
crashes is reduced as drivers are alerted to undertake a degree of emergency braking and/or steering input
with the effect of reducing the ultimate impact speed.
Lyon, Persaud and Eccles (2015) note that the results obtained in the study were conservative as not all
sites used in the study were ideal candidates for this treatment and therefore the benefits were less notable.
Generally, it would be expected that this treatment should yield even greater crash reductions than those
presented in the study.
Treatment life
As with raised profile centrelines, raised profile centrelines and edgelines together have a recommended
treatment life of five years (Austroads 2010f).
Table 2.2:
Summary of crash reduction and modification (bracketed) factors for application of raised profile
centrelines and edgelines
Range from all

studies below
Head-on (all)
FSI headon(1)
All crashes
Lane-departure
(all)(2)
FSI lanedeparture
3565% (0.350.65)
30% (0.70)
20% (0.80)
2065% (0.350.80)
45% (0.55)
20% (0.80)
25% (0.75)
Lyon, Persaud
and Eccles (2015)
35% (0.65)
Olson, Sujka and

Manchas (2013)
65% (0.35)
30% (0.70)
Sayed, deLeur
and Pump (2010)
1
2
65% (0.35)
45% (0.55)
20% (0.80)
Crash reduction for FSI crashes is an important focus for the Safe System approach.
Head-on crashes are a subset of lane-departure crashes and therefore included in this list.
2.4
Enhanced Pavement Markings
Enhanced pavement markings, also termed long life road markers, improve the reflectivity of road markers to
improve their night time visibility. Smadi et al. (2010) demonstrate that increasing the retroreflectivity of
centrelines helps to reduce the crash rate on roads during times of darkness. Head-on crashes and single
vehicle crashes are identified as the target crash types affected by this treatment.
However, Harwood et al. (2014) suggest that improved visibility of delineation is only effective on roads with
good horizontal and vertical alignment. When applied on poorer quality roads, it can encourage higher
speeds inappropriate for the environment and result in a general increase in crashes (Harwood et al. 2014).
It has been suggested that improvements to the centreline marking visibility will be most effective when
edgeline markings are similarly improved (Avelar & Carlson 2014).
Profiled thermoplastic centreline stripes

Profiled thermoplastic centreline stripes are considered a moderate cost treatment that improves the visibility
of a centreline system at night-time, particularly in wet conditions (Neuman et al. 2003). As it is a moderate
cost, durable treatment, it is widely used (Bahar et al. 2006).
Another advantageous feature appears to be that these features provide a mild audio-tactile response,
alerting drivers straying from their lanes. However, the audio-tactile response is less noticeable for larger
vehicles, especially trucks (Neuman et al. 2003).
According to Neuman et al. (2003), this treatment suits road sections meeting the following conditions:
sections with relatively long unbroken centrelines

traffic volumes and head-on crash history do not justify raised profile centrelines or other more expensive
treatments
wet-weather crashes are high

resurfacing or other pavement maintenance is not scheduled for at least three years.
Cold applied plastic materials
Cold applied plastic material is a two-part liquid mix of a resin-based material and a hardener. To improve
reflectivity, glass beads are pre-mixed into the product, and additional beads are dropped on during
application. Due to its high wear resistance, this treatment is generally used for marking intersections
(VicRoads 2014).
Road marking tape

Road marking tapes have a high initial cost compared to other linemarking options, so that their use is
generally restricted to limited areas where a high level of performance is required under severe conditions, or
to minor treatments to repair or replace sections of deteriorated linemarking. Tape may be produced flat or
profiled and retroreflective glass beads are incorporated into the material during its production.
Tape retroreflectivity is about four to six times that of waterborne traffic paints. However, their retroreflectivity
quickly diminishes, with a useful life span of three years (Bahar et al. 2006).
Figure 2.5 shows the installation of road marking tape for treating a short section.
Figure 2.5:
Installation of road marking tape
Source: Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA), private communication, September 2015.
Crash modification
Enhanced pavement markings can reduce night-time mid-block crashes by 10% (CMF of 0.90) (Migletz &
Graham 2002). When isolating high crash frequency sites only, it is suggested that this treatment can reduce
crashes by 15% (CMF of 0.85). Whilst these CRFs do not differentiate by crash type, it is generally accepted
that this treatment has the greatest impact on run-off-road and head-on crashes (Donnell, Karwa &
Sathyanarayanan 2009).
Treatment life
Austroads (2010f) suggests a treatment life of five years for thermoplastic markings. For retroreflective tape,
Bahar et al. (2006) indicate a useful treatment life of three years.
2.5
Raised Reflective Pavement Markers
RRPMs, also sometimes known as retroreflective pavement markers, cats eyes or road studs, are used to
augment the visibility of road markings. As the name suggests, the markers are raised, yet of trafficable
profile, and are reflective such that they are illuminated by approaching vehicle headlights (AS 1742.2-2009).
Figure 2.6 shows centreline RRPMs during daylight, whilst Figure 2.7 shows centreline RRPMs illuminated
by headlights at night-time.
Figure 2.6:
Centreline RRPMs during daylight
Source: ARRB Group.

Figure 2.7:
Centreline RRPMs illuminated at night-time by headlights
Source: MRWA, private communication, September 2015.
RRPMs are conspicuous under a range of conditions, including wet night-time conditions. Additionally, they
provide an audio-tactile signal when traversed by vehicle wheels, adding another stimulus to alert errant
drivers (AS 1742.2-2009).
Centreline RRPMs may be placed 2550 mm from either side of dividing lines. Centreline RRPMs should be
yellow to differentiate them from edgelines RRPMs (red) or lane line RRPMs (white) (AS 1742.2-2009).
Crash modification
Austroads (2010d) suggests that installation of RRPMs should reduce all types of crashes at a site by 5%
(CMF of 0.95) for all crashes.
It is suggested that this treatment may reduce all types of dry night-time crashes by 10% (CMF of 0.9), and
all types of wet night-time crashes by 20% (CMF of 0.8) (Ermer et al. 1991 in Austroads 2010e).
Gan, Shen and Rodriguez (2005) indicate a head-on crash reduction of 15% (CMF of 0.85) for this
treatment.
Treatment life
Austroads (2010f) suggests a treatment life of five years for RRPMs. However, the effective life of RRPMs
depends critically on the precise location where they are installed. While a five-year life may be possible for
an RRPM installed on the outside of an edgeline on a low-volume road, a much shorter life would be
anticipated for an RRPM on a centreline that is frequently crossed by vehicles.
2.6
Internally Illuminated Pavement Markers
Internally illuminated pavement markers (IIPMs), also known as LED raised pavement markers or intelligent
road studs, are a similar concept to RRPMs, but are self-illuminating. This serves to provide enhanced
delineation, or delineation when RRPMs are not considered fully effective. Power may be provided via solar
panels on the IIPMs, or through underground wiring (VicRoads 2005). Figure 2.8 shows a close view of a
solar-powered centreline IIPM.
Figure 2.8:
Close view of solar-powered centreline IIPM
It is opined that IIPM centrelines may be considered more effective than RRPMs on curves, crests or
freeway ramps where the road alignment does not allow vehicle headlights to adequately illuminate RRPMs
(VicRoads 2005).
Otherwise, IIPMs may be preferable when it is important to provide delineation over longer distances than
vehicle headlights may illuminate (Figure 2.9). IIPMs can provide illumination over 900 m, as compared to
RRPMs, which can typically provide illumination from headlights over 90 m (Highway Engineering in
Australia 2008).
Figure 2.9:
IIPMs illuminating over a long distance
Centreline IIPMs should still be retroreflective so they can provide some illumination even if the power source
or internal electronics or lighting systems fail. They should retain the same colouring format as for RRPMs
(i.e. yellow along centrelines) (AS 1742.2-2009; VicRoads 2005).
IIPMs are still an emerging technology, and some makes are more reliable than others. Practitioners should
consult with their local jurisdiction for guidance on which IIPM products are preferred, and their level of
reliability (MRWA, private communication, 27 November 2015).
Crash modification
An extensive literature review has failed to identify crash modification factors for the installation of IIPMs.
However, as they operate in a similar manner to RRPMs, but provide improved delineation over a longer
distance, it is anticipated that crash reductions should be similar, and perhaps slightly higher, than those for
RRPMs. However, more research should be done to quantify the in-service benefits of IIPMs.
Treatment life
An extensive literature review has failed to identify any adopted service life values for IIPMs. In the absence
of any such literature, it is assumed that they should have a similar service life as for RRPMs, i.e. five years
(Austroads 2010f). It is possible that the service life may be lower, as the electronics in the system may
require more frequent servicing.
Also, Styles et al. (2003) report that, in some pedestrian-friendly locations, IIPMs were prone to vandalism or
theft, and that IIPMs may be damaged more frequently due to traffic. Care should therefore be taken in
selecting appropriate sites for installation, and ensuring routine maintenance of the markers.
3. Median Treatments
3.1
Painted Median
Painted medians, also known as flush medians, are a low-cost option that addresses head-on crashes by
improving lateral separation of vehicles and discouraging overtaking (Austroads 2010e). Figure 3.1 and
Figure 3.2 show installations of painted medians on curved and straight road sections respectively.
Figure 3.1:
Painted median on curve
Source: ARRB Group.

Figure 3.2:
Painted median on straight section
Source: Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), private communication, November 2014.
Painted medians are generally preferable to raised medians where the roadway is too narrow to install a raised
median (i.e. the associated clearances are not possible), or where the costs are not justified (Austroads 2010g).
Narrowing the road through the installation of medians can also help to reduce travel speeds and encourage
drivers to travel at a more appropriate speed for the environment presented to them. By travelling at lower
speeds, drivers have more opportunity to avoid a collision, whilst the severity of any crash that may occur is
reduced (Austroads 2014c).
Austroads (2010g) specifies that the minimum width for painted medians should be 600 mm. However,
Levett, Job and Tang (2009) report that the benefits of painted medians are maximised when they are at
least 1.0 m wide. Cleaver, Jurisich and Dunn (2007) report that variations in median widths between 1.3 m
and 3.1 m have negligible impact on the crash rate or severity of crashes.
Therefore, it is suggested that medians should ideally be 1.0 m, after which median width should be based
on the characteristics of the roadway, such as available road width and desirable lane widths.
Figure 3.3 shows a schematic diagram of the layout of a painted median.
When installing painted medians along roads prone to congestion, care should be taken that medians are
not used by drivers to travel through illegally. This may be achieved by keeping median widths narrow or by
installing pavement bars. Pavement bars also improve the effectiveness of the median (Section 3.2).
Figure 3.3:
Typical layout of painted median
Notes:
Based on AS 1742.2-2009.
Pavement markers on the outside of an island are unidirectional RRPMs.
Diagonal rows of RRPMs within the marked median should be considered as an alternative to RRPMs along the
outline. Two sets of RRPMs will not normally be required together.
N is generally 12 m for approaches to intersections.

Source: Austroads (2010g).
Crash modification
Roads and Maritime (2015b) suggests a 40% reduction in head-on crashes for painted medians (CMF of 0.60).
Austroads (2010d) adopts a reduction in all crash types of 1520% (CMF of 0.800.85) for the installation of
painted medians.
Treatment life
Austroads (2010f) adopts a treatment life of five years for painted medians.
3.2
Pavement Bars
Pavement bars (also referred to as safety bars) are raised blocks located within the painted median, used to
augment the median (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4:
Example of pavement bars in median
Although traversable, they provide a very strong audio-tactile response, discouraging drivers from crossing
them except in an emergency. They also improve the visibility of the median, particularly in wet conditions
(Austroads 2009a). By discouraging drivers from traversing the median, pavement bars also discourage
illegal overtaking manoeuvres (AS 1742.2-2009).
This treatment should only be used on roads with 85th percentile speeds less than 75 km/h. For roads with
higher speeds, RRPMs may be used to augment painted islands instead (AS 1742.2-2009). Pavement bars
should also not be used on roadways with a width less than 6.8 m (Austroads 2009a).
Pavement bars may be useful where raised medians may not be appropriate due to pavement width or
lighting issues (AS 1742.2-2009). It is advised that they can be applied at relatively low cost and that they do
not affect surface drainage (Austroads 2009a).
When applying this treatment, the needs of motorcyclists and cyclists should be considered. It is suggested
that bars should be spaced more than 2.0 m apart so they are greater than the typical wheelbase of
motorcycles2. Use on curves should be avoided so as to prevent the destabilisation of motorcycles at this
critical point (Austroads 2009a).
Crash modification
An extensive literature search has failed to find any studies as to the effectiveness of this treatment in reducing crashes.
Treatment life
No specific literature could be found identifying a treatment life for the installation of pavement bars. In the
absence of any such literature, it is assumed that this treatment would have a similar service life to raised
profile centrelines or RRPMs, i.e. five years (Austroads 2010f).
AS 1742.2-2009 permits shorter separation along the tapered section.
3.3
Wide Centreline Treatment
Wide centrelines are a type of painted median treatment, also known as the narrow painted median strip
treatment (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5:
Examples of wide centreline treatments
Source: ARRB Group.
This treatment type typically provides a 1 m wide narrow median, increasing the separation of vehicles, but
with negligible effect on vehicle travel speeds (Burdett 2011). Whilst 1 m wide centrelines are the advised
width for this treatment, where geometric constraints do not allow for this, narrower wide centreline
treatments are still expected to provide benefit, albeit reduced, and can be managed on a risk basis.
The addition of raised profile linemarking (Section 2.2) increases the effectiveness of this treatment, alerting
drivers should they deviate from their lane (Whittaker 2012). Figure 3.6 shows an example of a wide
centreline treatment with raised profile linemarking.
Installation of wide centrelines can generally be achieved within the space available on a two-way undivided
road, e.g. a 1 m wide centreline can be formed by reducing each 3.5 m wide lane to 3.0 m wide (Whittaker
2012), or through a combination of narrowing the shoulder and lane widths (Neuman et al. 2003).
However, lane and/or shoulder narrowing can only be achieved if road geometry after narrowing will still
allow trucks and buses to be comfortably positioned away from the wide centreline (Neuman et al. 2003).
Lane and shoulder narrowing limits a drivers ability to regain control of an errant vehicle, so practitioners
should consider the occurrence of loss-of-control crashes on the roadway before implementing this
treatment.
Intuitively, reducing the width of the lane will have the effect of concentrating wheel paths, which may
exacerbate rutting in certain situations. Where a road carries significant numbers of heavy vehicles or towed
vehicles, reducing the lane width may require further consideration of its impact.
Nevertheless, the benefits of introducing the wide centreline are considered to outweigh the disbenefits of
narrowing the lanes to 3.0 m to accommodate them (Department of Transport and Main Roads 2013). An
additional benefit of this treatment type is that it encourages lower travel speeds (Neuman et al. 2003).
Figure 3.6:
Layout of painted median outline with raised profile linemarking
Source: ARRB Group.
Neuman et al. (2003) advise that care should be taken when narrowing shoulders to ensure that:
the treatment does not result in greater risk of FSI collisions with roadside objects
there is adequate protection in the shoulder for broken-down vehicles.
The treatment may be further complemented with alternating white diagonal strips and yellow diagonal
reflective markers to further highlight the median strip (Whittaker 2012). Alternatively, in Germany the median
is highlighted with green surface markings (Traffic Technology Today 2014).
Figure 3.7:
Wide centrelines highlighted by RRPMs and coloured linemarkings respectively
(a) RRPMs
(b) Green linemarkings
Source: Whittaker (2012).
Source: Traffic Technology Today (2014).
Unlike other median treatments, wide centrelines may be designed to permit drivers to cross into the
opposing travel lane to perform overtaking manoeuvres, through the use of broken wide centreline markings
(Lilley 2012; Connell, Babic & Pattison 2011). Examples of centreline markings to allow for overtaking for
traffic travelling in either direction and for traffic travelling in one direction only are shown in Figure 3.8. Care
should be taken to ensure that overtaking is only permitted at appropriate locations.
Wide centreline treatments also provide the potential to have wire rope median barriers (WRMB) retrofitted
on them (Austroads 2009b). If the intention is for WRMBs to ultimately be added, road designers need to
consider whether a 1.0 m wide median is appropriate. As explained in Section 3.6.3, WRMBs are most
effective when located on medians wide enough to contain barrier deflection within the median. It is
suggested that in such circumstances it would be more effective to ensure the median is of sufficient width to
cater for the safe performance of WRMBs at the initial point of median installation.
Figure 3.8:
Example of wide centreline designed to allow for overtaking for both flows of traffic and one flow of
traffic respectively
(a) Both flows of traffic
(b) One flow of traffic
Source: DPTI, private communication, December 2014.
Source: TfNSW, private communication, January 2015.
Crash modification
Wide centreline treatments have been found to lead to an 80% reduction in head-on crashes (CMF of 0.20),
and a 60% reduction of total crashes (CMF of 0.40) (Whittaker 2012).
TfNSW (Private communication, April 2015) have adopted a 50% head-on crash reduction factor for this
treatment (CMF of 0.50).
As an additional benefit, this treatment has been found to lead to a 60% reduction in
run-off-the-road to the left crashes (CMF of 0.40) (Whittaker 2012).
Treatment life
Wide centreline treatments should have a similar treatment life to standard centrelines, i.e. three years for
standard linemarkings, and five years when using raised profile linemarkings (Austroads 2010f).
3.4
Raised Median
Raised medians, whilst more expensive than painted medians, are often preferred for their conspicuity and
physical deterrent effect in preventing cross-median manoeuvres. Raised medians can also accommodate
signposting, lighting and traffic signal hardware, and may be landscaped, improving aesthetics and restricting
headlight glare (Austroads 2010g).
Typically, raised medians are more common on urban and semi-urban roads than rural roads.
Figure 3.9 shows an example of a paved raised median, whilst Figure 3.10 shows a grassed raised median
which, as well as separating traffic, provides locations for signage and lighting.
Figure 3.9:
Paved raised median
Source: ARRB Group.

Figure 3.10: Grassed raised median providing shelter for signs and lighting
Source: ARRB Group.
When deciding upon the introduction of a raised median, the following factors should be considered
(Austroads 2010g), whether:
any artificial lighting needs to be provided

the raised medians are likely to affect drainage and the steps needed to address this
additional roadway space will be required to store immobilised vehicles and for offset to median kerbs.
The kerbing used in raised medians should be semi-mountable and clearly delineated (Austroads 2010g).
Additionally, raised medians on roads prone to congestion should not be appealing to drivers to use as a
transit lane (Figure 3.11). This could be achieved by keeping the median width below 2.8 m, or installing
frangible signage posts at regular intervals along the median.
Figure 3.11: Drivers using raised median as transit lane on congested road
Source: Haynes (2009).
Crash modification
Roads and Maritime (2015b) indicates that the installation of raised medians may reduce head-on crashes
by as much as 60% (CMF of 0.40).
Schultz et al. (2011) report that installation of raised medians may lead to a 40% reduction in the total crash
rate (CMF of 0.60), and a 45% reduction in the FSI crash rate (CMF of 0.55).
Austroads (2010d) indicates a likely 4555% reduction in all crashes (CMF of 0.450.55) with the installation
of raised medians.
Treatment life
Austroads (2010f) recommends a treatment life of 20 years for raised medians.
3.5
Barrier Kerbing on Median
Barrier kerbing may be used to delineate the median and provide a narrow physical obstacle to head-on
crashes (Figure 3.12 to Figure 3.25). This kerb type should ideally be 150 mm high to prevent vehicles
traversing the kerb at low to moderate speeds. This treatment should also only be used on roads with speed
limits of 70 km/h or under, as at higher speeds, the kerb may result in errant vehicles rolling over or
becoming airborne (Main Roads Western Australia 2014).
It is suggested that, when used on medians, an offset of at least 0.3 m should be provided, although 0.6 m is
preferable. As this treatment creates a sense of restriction and does not allow for additional space for rear
trailer sway, this kerbing is not recommended on narrow roads or those where a high percentage of traffic is
expected to be heavy vehicles (Main Roads Western Australia 2014).
Whilst being a physical impediment to median crossover, will be unable to prevent most vehicle crossovers.
Barrier kerbing can be formed by bespoke units or pre-cast concrete kerbing units placed back-to-back to
form the required profile.
Figure 3.12: Example of median barrier kerbing
2015 Google
Source: Google Maps (2015), New South Wales, map data, Google, California, USA.
Figure 3.13: Further example of median barrier kerbing
Source: ARRB Group.
Crash modification
An extensive literature search has failed to identify any literature identifying crash modification factors for this
treatment. It is recommended that such investigations be conducted in the future.
Treatment life
In the absence of literature indicating a service life for this particular treatment, it is assumed this treatment
will have a similar treatment life to other kerb and median treatments, for which Roads and Maritime (2015b)
has adopted a 30-year service life.
3.6
Median Barriers
Median barriers minimise the possibility of an errant vehicle crossing into the path of traffic travelling in the
opposite direction. It is stated that unless crash history at the site warrants it, median barriers are not
necessary when medians are wide enough or traffic volumes low enough that head-on crash risk should be
low (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2011).
Consideration for the use of median barriers should be given based on road environment, anticipated traffic
volumes and an assessment of the risks based on road geometry (Austroads 2010i).
For instance, VicRoads (2003 in Austroads 2010i) specifies that, on freeways with speed limits of 100110
km/h, median barriers should be provided:
where the annual average daily traffic (AADT) will exceed 30 000 vpd within 510 years
where the AADT will reach between 20 000 and 30 000 vpd within 510 years and the separation
between opposing traffic is less than 6 m
where a risk assessment indicates a need for the barrier for any other reason.
A detailed overview of median barriers, including guidance on their selection and installation may be found in
Part 6 of the Austroads Guide to road design (Austroads 2010c).
Barriers used on Australian and New Zealand roads must comply with the Australian and New Zealand
Standard AS/NZS 3845.1:2015: Road safety barrier systems and devices part 1: Road safety barrier
systems.
Recent research has indicated that, following the installation of median barriers, the crash rate at a site will
generally increase. However, and aligned with Safe System principles, the severity of such crashes will
decrease, i.e. high-severity head-on crashes resulting from median crossovers will be replaced with more
controlled crashes of lower severity into median barriers (Chimba et al. 2014).
Road safety barriers dissipate kinetic energy of a vehicle crash into a more manageable form of energy, such
as (AS/NZS 3845.1:2015):
heat through friction

elastic or plastic deformation of components of the barrier and/or vehicle
fracture of components of the barrier and/or vehicle, or both
controlled displacement of the barrier and/or vehicle, such as lifting of the vehicle.
The transfer of energy needs to be achieved in a controlled manner. It is therefore important to ensure that
no unintended snagging of the vehicle occurs, which may lead to unsafe vehicle movements such as rolling,
yawing, or excessive deflection into nearby vehicles (AS/NZS 3845.1:2015).
Depending on the type of barrier and its purpose, median barriers are generally designed to pass crash tests
featuring private vehicles or small trucks, and impacting at angles between 1525, and at speeds of 50100
km/h. Larger vehicle mass or size, impact angles, or impact speeds compromise the barriers ability to
restrain the vehicle. This has led some to opine that median barriers should be avoided on tight curves when
possible (Ross et al. 1993; Transport for NSW 2012). However, such usage is included in the pertinent
Australian Standard AS/NZS 3845.1:2015, with consideration of a reduction in traffic speed or using a
median barrier with a high performance level.
When considering the implementation of median barriers, the following issues should be taken into account:
likely crash severity

costs per crash, considering both injury and property damage costs
minimum required width for safe use of barrier
impact of the barrier on sight distance and aesthetics
influence of barrier on drainage
safety of motorcyclists (Section 3.6.6)
barrier terminal treatments (Section 3.6.7) (Austroads 2010c).
The median width required for installation of a barrier will be dependent on the barrier width and the required
clearance between the barrier and the traffic edgeline. Required clearance will depend on the expected
deflection of the barrier during impact with a design vehicle, as well as a nominal clearance at which drivers
will feel comfortable driving alongside the barrier (Austroads 2010c).
Ideally, the maximum deflection of the barrier should be less than half the median width in order to prevent
penetration of the barrier into opposing traffic (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials 2011) (Figure 3.14). However, median barriers retrofitted on narrower medians have been proved to
work successfully when needed (Marsh & Pilgrim 2010).
Figure 3.14: Deflection of errant vehicle by wire rope median barrier
Source: ARRB Group.
Rigid barriers work adequately where there is no room for deflection. However, flexible barriers provide for
better dissipation of energy, thus reducing the severity of crashes. The disbenefit is that flexible barriers need
more space to deflect without encroaching into the stream of opposing traffic. An increased risk of
penetration exists with wire rope barriers.
The relative effectiveness of different median barriers in reducing FSI crashes can be viewed in Table 3.1,
which presents the FSI crash ratio3 for each barrier option.
The number of fatal or serious injury crashes resulting from running into a crash barrier, divided by the total number of such crashes.
Table 3.1:
FSI crash ratio for safety barrier solutions
Median barrier option

All
Rural 100 km/h
Rural 110 km/h
types(1)
0.46(2)
0.61(2)
Rigid
0.50(3)
0.50(3)
Semi-rigid
0.60
0.56
Flexible
0.33(3)
0.33(3)
There was indication that FSI crash ratios increased with barrier offset from the edge line at about 0.03 per metre.
This trend was only demonstrated for semi-rigid and flexible barriers on high-speed roads. The evidence was not
consistent for all barrier types in all speed environments due to the small sample size of crashes into barriers with
large offset. A relevant scaling factor could be applied to barrier FSI crash ratios if barriers are proposed to be placed
significantly further away from the edge line than each barrier's typical application range (24 m).
The result for all types is based on all available barrier crash data and larger sample sizes. Thus, it may be different
to a weighted average of the results for rigid, semi-rigid and flexible barriers which were based on a smaller data set
of manually selected crashes according to the method documented in Austroads (2014b).
Based on a sample from Victorian 100 km/h urban freeways insufficient data was available on rural roads.
Source: Modified from Table 7.6 of Austroads (2014b).
Crash modification
Elvik and Vaa (2004) indicate that the installation of any type of median barrier on a divided highway should
result in a 25% increase in crashes (CMF of 1.25). However, the injury crash rate would reduce by 30%
(CMF of 0.70) and the fatal crash rate would decrease by 45% (CMF of 0.55). This study does not
distinguish by crash type it is likely that the increase in crashes would be primarily due to an increase in
run-off-road into median barrier crashes, whereas a decrease in injury crashes would be attributed to a
significant reduction in head-on crashes, replaced by less severe run-off-road collisions.
3.6.1 Rigid Median Barriers

Rigid median barriers are generally concrete barriers (Figure 3.15), used when space available for deflection
is very limited (Jama et al. 2011). These barriers are generally costly to install (Alba et al. 2014).
Figure 3.15: Example of concrete rigid median barrier
Source: ARRB Group.
Rigid barriers can be used on medians as narrow as 0.8 m, but, in such cases, the barrier would consume
the entirety of the median space (Austroads 2010i). Ideally, rigid barriers should not be offset more than
3.0 m from the edge of a trafficable lane, and never more than 4.0 m. With any greater offset, angles of
impact would be large, such that severe injuries become more likely (Austroads 2010c).
The minimum length (run) of rigid barriers should be 2030 m. Drainage provisions should be considered to
prevent stormwater flooding.
Concrete barriers can also be difficult to see at night-time due to their limited contrast with the roadway
pavement, particularly under wet conditions and/or when drivers are affected by headlight glare (Roads and
Traffic Authority 2010). The practitioner should therefore consider including linear delineation on the concrete
barrier, particularly on curves (Figure 3.16).
Figure 3.16: Linear delineation of concrete barrier on a curve
Source: ARRB Group.
Crash modification
Tarko, Villwock and Blond (2008) indicate that concrete median barriers will eliminate all cross-median
crashes (CMF of 0). However, as indicated previously, concrete median barriers do result in an increase in
run-off-road to the right crashes into the barriers, with a 120% increase in single vehicle crashes (CMF of
2.2, i.e. more than double). The increased crashes were of much lower severity than the head-on crashes.
Whilst Tarko, Villwock and Blond (2008) indicated a slight increase in all casualty crashes, the report does
not distinguish between severity outcomes.
Due to a likely increase in single vehicle crashes, Elvik and Vaa (2004) deduce that there would be a 15%
increase in injury crashes. However, this study does not distinguish between minor and severe injuries, nor
are separate crash reductions indicated by crash type.
Gan, Shen and Rodriguez (2005) indicate that installation of concrete median barriers should reduce all fatal
crashes by 90% (CMF of 0.10) and injury crashes by 10% (CMF of 0.90).
Treatment life
Austroads (2010f) recommends a treatment life of 30 years for rigid median barriers.
3.6.2 Semi-rigid Median Barriers

Semi-rigid median barriers provide a degree of deflection to absorb some energy from impact in minimal
road space. These barriers generally fall under three different categories:
W-beams, consisting of W-shaped steel beams facing traffic, supported by steel or wooden posts
thrie-beams, similar to a W-beam but with more corrugations and a higher mounting position. They
provide increased rigidity and are typically able to contain larger vehicles
tubular beams of various hollow shapes (e.g. rectangular) supported by posts

steel tubular section on bridge barriers (Jama et al. 2011).
Examples of the most common W-beam barrier in use along a wide and narrow median are shown in
Figure 3.17 and Figure 3.18 respectively.
Figure 3.17: W-beam barrier along wide median
Source: ARRB Group.

Figure 3.18: W-beam barrier along narrow median
Source: ARRB Group.
When placing back-to-back semi-rigid barriers on curve medians, consideration should be given to ensure
that the inside barrier maintains sufficient tension in the rail to perform as designed (Austroads 2010c).
Specific manufacturer requirements will apply.
The minimum length of installation for semi-rigid barriers should typically be 30 m (Austroads 2010c).
When installing semi-rigid barriers near kerbs, they should either be installed within 200 mm of the kerb or
some distance behind to avoid the kerb/barrier configuration from causing vehicles to vault over the barrier
(Austroads 2010c).
Crash modification
Alluri, Haleem and Gan (2013a) report that W-beam barriers prevent 95% of cross-median crashes (CMF of
0.05), including almost 100% of crashes involving cars (CMF of ~0.00) and 90% of crashes involving light
trucks (CMF of 0.10). The effectiveness for medium and heavy trucks was lower with reductions of 80%
(CMF of 0.20) and 75% (CMF of 0.25) respectively.
Treatment life
Austroads (2010f) recommends a treatment life of 30 years for semi-rigid median barriers.
3.6.3 Wire Rope Median Safety Barriers

Wire rope median safety barriers (WRMBs), also called wire rope safety fences (WRSF) or cable barriers,
are essentially flexible crash barriers. The barrier uses steel cables supported by collapsible posts to absorb
energy, contain errant vehicles and redirect them back towards their intended path. The system was first
introduced to New South Wales in 1991, and is now in use in all jurisdictions in Australia (Austroads 2009b).
WRMBs as a means to prevent crossover crashes may be applied on a median or along wide centrelines
(Figure 3.19) (Austroads 2009b). When undivided roads are upgraded to wide centrelines with WRMBs,
traffic has been found to travel further from the centre of the road, such that vehicles are both physically
restrained, and also have a greater buffer to avoid head-on and run-off-road to the right crashes (Marsh &
Pilgrim 2010).
Figure 3.19: WRMB in wide centreline
Source: ARRB Group.
Whilst barrier selection is made on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific needs of a site, WRMBs
are often favoured over rigid or semi-rigid barrier systems. Early findings from the use and outcomes of
WRMBs, reported in Austroads (2009b) show generally favourable results. As this infrastructure technology
has progressed and various products of this type have come onto market, evaluation and research continues
into the performance, whole-of-life costs and implementation aspects of such provision. The reader is
advised to consult with their local jurisdiction as to policies on the use and maintenance of WRMBs.
Whole of life costs for WRMB will vary depending on the barrier specification and its maintenance schedule
as well as the likely rate of collisions into the barrier (and subsequent need for repairs). Indications are that
some situations, other barrier types or alternate treatments may prove more cost effective.
When considering the installation of wire rope barriers, the following factors should be considered (Austroads
2010c):
lateral slope should typically not exceed 10:1

care should be taken to ensure adequate tension (before, during and after an impact) on WRMBs where
horizontal curve radius is less than 600 m
WRMBs may not be appropriate on sag vertical curves as:

tension may lift poles out of the ground (particularly during cold weather)
the WRMB may be elevated over the sag allowing the vehicle bonnet to pass under the barrier so that
the ropes may make contact with and encroach into the occupant compartment
WRMB should not connect directly to other barrier types and should be positioned such that the other
barriers do not interfere with WRMB deflection.
Ideally, WRMBs should be located on medians wide enough that barrier deflection will not cross over into
opposing traffic. However, this is not always possible on brownfield sites, and the installation of WRMBs on a
narrow median often provides greater safety benefits than any associated risks. Appendix H of Part 6 of the
Austroads Guide to road design (Austroads 2010c) provides additional guidance on the installation of
WRMBs on narrow medians.
It is highlighted that a WRMB system cannot remain continuous for very long stretches of road. Adjacent
WRMBs need to overlap in such a manner that the anchor point angled towards one stream of traffic is
shielded by the other WRMB system, as shown in Figure 3.20.
Figure 3.20: Overlapping of WRMB systems
Source: ARRB Group.
Crash modification
Table 3.2 summarises a number of head-on, single-vehicle and FSI crash reduction and modification factors
for the installation of WRMBs, sourced from various references. Table 3.3 presents further factors based on
varying levels of crash severity. As can be seen, despite an increase in total crashes, the severity of crashes
is significantly reduced which, as explained earlier, is a major consideration within the Safe System approach
to road safety.
Table 3.2:
Summary of crash reduction and modification (bracketed) factors for WRMB treatment of head-on,
single-vehicle and FSI crashes extracted from selected studies
Study
Head-on
Single-vehicle
FSI crashes
6095% (0.050.40)
40 to 95% (1.401.95)
075% (0.251.00)
TfNSW (Private
communication, April 2015)
95% (0.05)
95% (1.95)
Villwock, Blond and Tarko

(2009)
95% (0.05)
70% (1.70)
Negligible(1) (1.0)
Alluri, Haleem and Gan

(2013b) all
80% (0.20)
40% (1.40)
25% (0.75)

(2013b) cars
10% (0.90)

(2013b) light trucks
35% (0.65)

(2013b) motorcycles
75% (0.25)
Olsen et al. (2011)
60% (0.40)
45% (0.55)
Candappa et al. (2009)
85% (0.15)
65% (0.35)
Range of studies
It should be noted that this refers to a negligible change in the number of FSI crashes, not the number of fatal or
serious injuries. Presumably, even if the number of FSI crashes did not change, a shift to single-vehicle crashes from
head-on crashes would result in fewer vehicles involved and therefore, fewer crash casualties.
Note: Crash reduction for FSI crashes is an important focus for the Safe System approach.
Table 3.3:
Crash modification factors for crashes of varying severity extracted from selected studies
Study

(2013b) crash rate
Nilsson and Prior (2004)
casualty numbers
Fatal
Serious injury
Minor injury
Property damage only
All
0.58
0.80
0.88
1.88
1.38
0500.65
0.550.70
~1.0
1.30
Chimba et al. (2014) found that crashes into WRMBs increased with increasing:
shoulder width (a counter-intuitive finding)

differential elevation
degree of curve
traffic volume
speed limit
number of curves.
Crashes decreased with an increase in (Chimba et al. 2014):
number of lanes
cable offset
median width.
These variables suggest that, with greater lateral distance, drivers should be able to regain control of errant
vehicles, preventing a collision with the WRMB (Chimba et al. 2014).
Treatment life
Roads and Maritime (2015b) adopts a service life of 30 years for this treatment.
Studies have shown that WRMBs are cheaper to install, but have higher maintenance costs than other
median barriers as they require periodic retensioning of the cables due to general wear and tear (Neuman et
al. 2008). A benefit of WRMBs is that, after a collision, repairs can be done much faster, often taking a matter
of minutes. This generally involves removing damaged posts and inserting new posts into the sockets.
In terms of anticipated strikes, when used in wide centrelines, barriers are expected to be struck every 12
million vehicle kilometres. When used in conjunction with audio-tactile linemarkings, the strike rate is
anticipated to be lower (Marsh & Pilgrim 2010).
3.6.4 2+1 Roads

WRMBs are used extensively in Sweden in a design layout referred to as a 2+1 road. Whilst this treatment
is not a typical median treatment, it is prudent to include mention of this highly successful scheme.
The 2+1 road design involves a three-lane cross-section. The outside lanes serve as a general traffic lane for
one direction each. The centre lane serves as an overtaking lane for each direction of traffic, alternating
every 12.5 km, with a transition zone of up to 300 m in length (Figure 3.21) (Austroads 2009b).
Figure 3.21: Typical 2+1 road configuration
Source: ARRB Group.
An example of an Australian 2+1 road configuration is shown in Figure 3.22. In the foreground of this image,
approaching traffic has an overtaking lane, whilst departing traffic has only one lane. In the background,
departing traffic has an overtaking lane, and the tapered beginning of the approaching overtaking lane can
be seen.
Figure 3.22: 2+1 roadway
Source: ARRB Group.
The 2+1 layout has been applied on roads with speed limits of between 90 km/h and 110 km/h with
significant safety benefits, and is therefore seen as one of the key contributors to the Safe System approach.
It is reported that the layout has resulted in an 80% reduction in fatalities, and a 55% reduction in severe
injuries (Bergh et al. 2003 in Austroads 2009b).
It is considered that this treatment is suitable for consideration for roads with an overtaking head-on crash
history, for which traffic flows are not sufficient to support a dual divided carriageway (Department of State
Growth Tasmania 2014). The treatment is recommended for roads with traffic flows rates of up to 1200 veh/h
in one direction of travel (Derr 2005).
A typical 2+1 road cross-section on a 13 m wide carriageway would include (Austroads 2009b):
1.25 m wide median

3.25 m lanes for the two-lane direction
3.5 m lanes for the one-lane direction
0.75 m hard shoulders on each side of the carriageway (Figure 3.23).
Figure 3.23: Typical 2+1 road cross-section
Source: ARRB Group.
Crash modification
It has been found that converting a 13 m wide road to a 2+1 road with a WRMB reduced fatal crashes (all
crash types) by 80% (CMF of 0.20). For motorcyclists, the number of FSI crashes (all crash types) was
reduced by 4050% (CMF of 0.600.50) by the introduction of 2+1 roads (Carlsson 2009).
When analysing such roads by speed limit (Carlsson 2009):
110 km/h roads returned 75% reduction in the fatal crash rate (CMF of 0.25)
90 km/h roads returned an 80% reduction in the fatal crash rate (CMF of 0.20).
Bergh et al. (2003 in Austroads 2009b) report that 2+1 roadways have reduced fatal crashes by 80% and
severe injury crashes by 55% (CMFs of 0.20 and 0.45 respectively).
Treatment life
An extensive literature search has failed to identify any adopted service life values for the installation of 2+1
roadways. In the absence of these values, it is assumed that this treatment should have a service life similar
to that of WRMB, i.e. 30 years (Roads and Maritime 2015b).
3.6.5 Moveable Barriers

Moveable delineation and barrier systems have been used where tidal flow is sought on a road space during
peak traffic periods.
Systems have developed in time, such that some are now capable of deflecting errant vehicles and be
relocated during the day to cater for alternating traffic flow peaks (Figure 3.24). These systems can be
designed to consume as little as 0.30 m road space and can eliminate head-on crashes in situations where
this may not at first appear possible (World Highways 2015).
Lane changeovers can be done quickly. The Auckland Harbour Bridge moveable barriers (2 km length) take
30 minutes to transfer, including 10 minutes setting up the machinery (Resolve Group, private
communication, July 2015). A further example is the moveable barrier system on Victoria Road in Sydney,
which has been in operation since 2011.
Figure 3.24: Images of moveable barrier being transitioned, including over Auckland Harbour Bridge (right)
Source: World Highways (2015).
Crash modification
In the absence of any literature identifying crash modification factors for moveable barriers specifically, this
treatment would be expected to have similar crash modification outcomes to other concrete barriers
(Section 3.6.1).
Treatment life
With refurbishment, moveable barriers have an indefinite treatment life (Resolve Group, private
communication, July 2015).
3.6.6 Motorcyclist Concerns with Median Barriers

Integral to the Safe Systems approach is providing a safe road environment for all road users, i.e. including
motorcyclists.
Concerns have been raised as to the compatibility of median barriers with collisions involving motorcycles.
Whilst the proportion of fatal motorcycle crashes involving safety barriers is low at 5.4% in Australia, this is
very high relative to the fatality rate for car occupants (Jama et al. 2011; Bambach, Grzebieta & McIntosh
2013). In Europe, whilst collisions with safety barriers are a factor in 816% of motorcyclist deaths,
motorcyclists are 15 times more likely to sustain fatal injuries from colliding with a barrier than a car occupant
in the same impact (EuroRAP 2008). In the USA, motorcyclists have an 80 times greater risk of sustaining
fatal injuries from a barrier collision than car occupants (Gabler 2007).
As a result of the increased risk, protection for motorcyclists has been mandated when using guardrails in
Portugal and the Netherlands (Delhaye 2011).
Despite the concerns, it is believed that motorcyclist safety is improved by the presence of median barriers.
Whilst they may present their own hazards to motorcyclists, they also contain errant vehicles in opposing
traffic. This reduces the risk of motorcyclists being involved in high-severity head-on collisions with errant
vehicles (EuroRAP 2008).
Concrete barriers are generally preferred by motorcyclists as, having a smooth concrete surface, the barriers
distribute forces more evenly when motorcyclists are thrown against them, reducing injuries (Alba et al. 2014).
The most common type of reported motorcycle-into-barrier crash in Australia and New Zealand is from
collisions with steel W-beam barriers (Grzebieta, Bambach & McIntosh 2013). Barrier support posts present
the greatest hazard for motorcyclists. Injuries from motorcyclist collisions with barrier support posts can be
five times as severe as other motorcyclist collisions (EuroRAP 2008).
The next most critical issue is the presence of protrusions along the top of barriers which can serve as sharp cutting
edges acting against motorcyclists sliding along the top of a barrier (Grzebieta, Bambach & McIntosh 2013).
Modified or shielded posts

As the posts present the greatest source of harm for motorcyclists, modifications to these posts have been
considered by many manufacturers and road designers (Austroads 2010b).
Posts with a sigma (), Z or C cross-section are less harmful to motorcyclists compared to an I-shaped
cross-section. In Australia, C-posts are the most commonly used (Alba et al. 2014; EuroRAP 2008).
Post protectors can be fitted onto wire rope safety barriers or steel barriers (Figure 3.25a). These cover the
posts, shielding motorcyclists from the barrier post edge. The barrier post edge, in particular its sharpness, is
the most harmful factor in a motorcyclist impact. Post protectors are made of energy-absorbent material such
as polystyrene, and they last four years. They are most effective in low-speed collisions, such as in urban
areas or on tight curves (Austroads 2010b). These protectors should only be used once testing has
confirmed they do not affect barrier performance.
Rub rails may be installed along the underside of W-beam barriers to allow riders thrown from the
motorcycles to slide along without being injured by the posts (Figure 3.25b) (Austroads 2010b).
Figure 3.25: Examples of motorcycle barrier post protection systems (see Section 1.6)
(a) Post protector
(b) Rub rail
Source: Ingal Civil (2015a).
Source: Ingal Civil (2015b).
3.6.7 Median Barrier Terminal Treatments

The ends of barriers present potential hazards when struck by errant vehicles, so the terminal design should
be considered carefully.
Along with other considerations, barrier terminals should not (Austroads 2010c):
stop an errant vehicle abruptly

cause a vehicle to roll, vault or yaw inappropriately
penetrate into the occupant space of the vehicle.
Part 6 of the Austroads Guide to road design (Austroads 2010c) provides guidance on the appropriate
selection of terminal treatments.
3.7
Flexible Bollards
Flexible bollards, also known as safe-hit posts, provide a visual separation and physical obstacle between
opposing streams of traffic (Figure 3.26). They are a possible treatment where there is insufficient road
space for the installation of a traditional median or median barrier and are often installed in conjunction with
barrier kerbs (Section 3.5) (Partridge 2015).
Flexible bollard systems may occupy the same space as wire rope barriers, allowing for their retrofitting if
required (Figure 3.27). The features are fully flexible and are not designed to physically prevent vehicles from
crossing the median. This treatment has been seen to reduce vehicle travel speeds slightly and encourages
drivers to travel further from the median (Mackie, March & Pilgrim 2011).
Figure 3.26: Flexible bollards on motorway
Source: ARRB Group.

Figure 3.27: Flexible bollards that may later be replaced with WRMB
Source: Mackie, March and Pilgrim (2011).
Crash modification
An extensive literature search has failed to identify any indications of crash modifications for this treatment. It
is recommended that more research be conducted to investigate the benefits of flexible bollards as a median
treatment, both in isolation and in combination with other treatments.
Treatment life
An extensive literature review has failed to identify any adopted service life values for flexible bollards. In the
absence of any such literature, it is assumed that they should have a similar service life as for RRPMs, i.e.
five years (Austroads 2010f).
3.8
Median Turning Bays
Whilst primarily a treatment to allow turning into driveways and entrances with minimal rear-end crashes,
studies have shown that the installation of median turning bays (known in New Zealand as flush medians)
also help to reduce head-on crashes. These bays serve to provide a buffer between opposing directions of
travel (Neuman et al. 2003).
Figure 3.28 presents a diagram demonstrating the operation of median turning bays, whilst Figure 3.29
presents an example of a median turning bay.
Figure 3.28: Diagram of operation of median turning bays
Source: Adapted from Roads and Maritime Services (2015a).

Figure 3.29: Example of median turning bay
Source: ARRB Group.
Median turning bays help to reduce head-on crashes in two ways:
They give the driver a more protected location to judge acceptable gaps in the oncoming flow. This in turn
reduces driver pressure, encouraging the driver to make safer decisions.
They provide a painted median between opposing vehicles, providing the safety benefits of such
medians, as discussed in Section 3.1 (Neuman et al. 2003).
Median turning bays can be installed on four-lane undivided roads by modifying the layout to a three-lane
roadway with a median turning bay. Alternately, two-lane roads can be reconstructed to include a median
turning bay (Neuman et al. 2003).
Crash modification
Based on expert opinion alone, Gan, Shen and Rodriguez (2005) suggest that this treatment should reduce
head-on crashes by 35% (CMF of 0.65), and all crash types by 30% (CMF of 0.70).
Treatment life
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) recommends a service life of between 7 and 20 years for this treatment.
3.9
Median Design
3.9.1 Median Width

Wider medians provide a greater recovery area for a driver to correct the position of an errant vehicle. They
may also reduce the impact of headlight glare and give drivers a greater sense of separation from opposing
vehicles. As such, the rate of head-on crashes has been found to be inversely related to the width of
medians. This is inclusive of the median shoulder width (Neuman et al. 2008).
Similarly, whilst wider medians reduce the risk of a crossover incident, computer simulations indicate a
disbenefit in the form of an increase in susceptibility to roll-over incidents (Stine et al. 2010).
Crash modification
The safety benefits of widening medians based on the road environment are outlined in Table 3.4 for fullaccess controlled medians (i.e. no at-grade crossings) and in Table 3.5 for partial-access controlled medians
or no-access controlled medians (i.e. intermittent at-grade crossings). These findings are based on there
being no median barriers.
Table 3.4:
Crash modification factors for full-access controlled medians based on width

Rural 4 lanes
Urban 4 lanes
Urban 5+ lanes
Median width
(m)
All
Crossmedian
All
Crossmedian
All
Crossmedian
3.05
6.10
9.14
12.19
15.24
18.29
21.34
24.38
27.43
30.48
1.00
0.96
0.93
0.90
0.87
0.84
0.81
0.78
0.75
0.73
1.00
0.86
0.74
0.63
0.54
0.46
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.25
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.76
0.72
0.68
0.65
0.61
1.00
0.89
0.80
0.71
0.64
0.57
0.51
0.46
0.41
0.36
1.00
0.93
0.86
0.80
0.74
0.69
0.64
0.59
0.55
0.51
1.00
0.89
0.79
0.71
0.63
0.56
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
Source: Adapted from Harkey et al. (2008).
Table 3.5:
Crash modification factors for partial-access controlled or no-access medians based on width
Rural 4 lanes
Median width (m)

3.05
6.10
9.14
12.19
15.24
18.29
21.34
24.38
27.43
30.48
Urban 4 lanes
All
Cross-median
All
Cross-median
1.00
0.95
0.91
0.87
0.83
0.79
0.76
0.72
0.69
0.66
1.00
0.84
0.71
0.60
0.51
0.43
0.36
0.31
0.26
0.22
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.81
0.77
0.73
0.69
0.65
0.62
1.00
0.87
0.76
0.67
0.59
0.51
0.45
0.39
0.34
0.30
Source: Adapted from Harkey et al. (2008).
Treatment life
An extensive literature search has failed to identify an appropriate treatment life for wide medians. In the
absence of any such literature, it is assumed that median width modifications would have a similar service
life to that of median installations, i.e. five years for painted medians and 20 years for raised medians
(Austroads 2010f).
3.9.2 Cross-section
Depressed medians with an inverted trapezoidal shaped cross-section have a theoretically lower incidence
of crossover incidents than medians with a v-ditch shaped cross-section. In a computer simulated
environment, about 22% fewer incidents of crossovers occurred when the median had an inverted
trapezoidal shape (Stine et al. 2010)
Median grade needs to be carefully controlled. Steeper grades have a lower risk of median crossovers, but a
higher risk of roll-over incidents (Stine et al. 2010).
Austroads (2010i) suggests that depressed medians should have a gradient of between 6:1 and 25:1 (10:1
being desirable); raised medians have a recommended gradient range of between 6:1 and 33:1.
Crash modification
Stine et al. (2010) demonstrate that use of an inverted trapezoidal shape could reduce head-on crashes by
20% compared to those with a v-ditch shaped cross-section (CMF of 0.80).
Treatment life
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) suggests a service life of 1020 years to changes to median slope.
3.9.3 Pavement Edge Drop-off

Edge drop-off (Figure 3.30) between the roadway and the median can affect a drivers ability to regain
control of an errant vehicle, and is therefore related to the incidence of head-on crashes. A drivers ability to
recover from entering a pavement edge drop-off is related to the shape and height of the edge drop and
availability of recovery area. As the height of the edge drop-off increases, the drivers ability to recover
decreases. Maintenance standards for edge drop-off vary across jurisdictions, according to factors such as
road classification, traffic volume and pavement width by road and shoulder type. Providing a smooth
recovery area, including smooth pavement edges, will increase a drivers ability to regain control of the
vehicle (Neuman et al. 2008).
Figure 3.30: Examples of uneven pavement edge drop-off
Source: BP Bitumen (2012).
Methods to improve the edge drop-off include:
installing a wedge at 3035 degrees to flatten the slope

adding channelling devices along the elevated side of the drop-off to prevent vehicles travelling beyond
this point (Neuman et al. 2008).
Maintenance procedures should also be reviewed to ensure that pavement edge deterioration is identified
and treated in a timely manner.
To improve driver awareness of the edge drop-off it may be beneficial to provide additional pavement
markers to delineate the pavement edge (Neuman et al. 2008).
Crash modification
Treatment life
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) recommends a treatment life of seven years for edge treatments.
3.9.4 Median Shoulder

A paved median shoulder (Figure 3.31) allows drivers to regain control of an errant vehicle under more
controlled conditions. This reduces the chances that drivers may overcorrect their vehicle leading to a loss of
control (Neuman et al. 2008).
Harwood et al. (2014) highlight that road agencies may be reluctant to install wider median shoulders so as
to encourage vehicles to make emergency stops at the roadside shoulder instead. However, widening
medians has been shown to reduce the overall crash rate. A matrix of CMFs is provided in Table 3.6. There
may be benefit in widening shoulders as a crash reduction treatment, or in cases where loss-of-control
crashes are more likely.
Figure 3.31: Example of paved median shoulder on highway
2015 Google
Crash modification
Crash modification factors for various median shoulder widths on freeways are shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6:
CMFs for varying the median shoulder width on freeways

Inside shoulder width (m) (after)
Inside shoulder width (m)

(before)
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.7
1.00
1.03
1.07
1.11
1.15
1.19
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.7
1.00
1.03
1.06
1.10
1.13
1.17
1.2
1.8
Fatal and injury crashes

0.97
0.93
1.00
0.97
1.03
1.00
1.07
1.03
1.11
1.07
1.15
1.11
Property damage only crashes
0.97
0.94
1.00
0.97
1.03
1.00
1.06
1.03
1.10
1.06
1.13
1.10
2.4
3.0
3.7
0.90
0.93
0.97
1.00
1.03
1.07
0.87
0.90
0.93
0.97
1.00
1.03
0.84
0.87
0.90
0.93
0.97
1.00
0.91
0.94
0.97
1.00
1.03
1.06
0.88
0.91
0.94
0.97
1.00
1.03
0.86
0.88
0.91
0.94
0.97
1.00
Source: Adapted from Harwood et al. (2014).
Treatment life
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) indicates that treatments to widen or improve shoulders should have a treatment
life of 1020 years.
3.10 Median Glare Treatments

Glare is defined as an increased amount of brightness in the visual field, to an extent that it is much greater
than the luminance the eyes are adapted for, which in turn may cause discomfort or limit visual performance
(Bagui, Ghosh & Jha 2004). Glare from the headlights of opposing vehicles can cause drivers to become
disorientated and/or lose control of their vehicle, which can include veering towards the opposing lane.
There are a variety of antiglare screens available for use, including concrete barriers, fencing, mesh, fabric
and tree plantations. A glare screen height of 1.8 m is recommended to provide antiglare protection for
drivers in a range of vehicles (Bagui & Ghosh 2009).
Antiglare screens (Figure 3.32) can be considered when headlight glare from opposing traffic cannot be
controlled through other means, such as sufficient separation between opposing lanes, either laterally or
vertically, or through the use of guardrails higher than 700 mm (Bagui, Ghosh & Jha 2004).
Figure 3.32: Antiglare screens (see Section 1.6)
Source: ARRB Group.
Crash modification
Treatment life
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) recommends a 1020 year treatment life for the installation of anti-glare screens.
3.11 Median Plantations

Median plantations (Figure 3.33) can provide a visual and physical separation of opposing traffic.
Additionally, they serve as a shield from headlight glare (Bagui, Ghosh & Jha 2004).
Figure 3.33: Median plantation
Source: ARRB Group.
Median plantations should be continuous to prevent intermittent dazzling of drivers from glare (Bagui &
Ghosh 2009).
Median plantations serve a number of functions:
visually and physically separate opposing traffic streams

delineate road alignment
shield drivers from glare (see Section 3.10)
enhance aesthetics of roadway
maintain driver interest by varying the landscaping (Bagui & Ghosh 2009).
Trees used in the median should be able to thrive in the local environment with minimal maintenance and not
grow to a large enough diameter to pose a hazard to motorists (Hallenbeck et al. 2013). Generally, trees with
a diameter of under 100 mm (once fully grown) are considered appropriate (Turner & Mansfield 1990).
When including plantations in medians, consideration should be given to the maintenance requirements of
the median, including safety of road users and maintenance crew during maintenance, and the potential for
the plantations to present any visual obstructions as they grow.
Crash modification
Moore and Cutler (1992) did not find any significant changes in cross-median crash rates from the
installation of median plantations. However, more recently Hallenbeck et al. (2013) have demonstrated an
overall crash reduction after unprotected trees were planted in medians.
Sullivan (2003) found a statistical increase in fatal and injury crashes following the installation of large trees
(with a diameter greater than 100 mm) in medians. Therefore, it is suggested that median landscaping
should only include trees with trunks that do not exceed 100 mm in diameter once fully grown.
Treatment life
An extensive literature search has failed to yield any appropriate values for the service life of landscaping
medians. In the absence of any such literature, the 15-year service life for upgrade median, adopted by
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) has been assumed.
4. Other Road Infrastructure Solutions

4.1
Speed Management
Speed is a major factor in the incidence and severity of road crashes, including head-on crashes. Head-on
crashes are the third most common crash type for speed-related rural crashes in Australia, and the second
most common in New Zealand (Austroads 2010c).
Central to the Safe System approach is management of vehicle speeds to ensure that those crashes that do
occur happen at survivable impact speeds. As a pillar of a Safe System, speed management (safer speeds)
should be considered as a means for reducing head-on crash incidence and severity. There are a number of
options available for managing speed, many of which are discussed in Austroads (2014c).
Crash modification
Whilst there are a range of methods available to reduce travel speeds based on the environment, as an
indication, Jaarsma et al. (2011) indicates that reducing speed limits from 80 km/h to 60 km/h on minor rural
areas can reduce head-on crashes by 20% (CMF of 0.80).
Treatment life
Whilst there are a range of methods available to reduce travel speeds based on the environment, as an
indication, signage to encourage lower speeds has a nominal treatment life of ten years (Austroads 2010f).
4.2
Intermittent Overtaking Lanes
Intermittent overtaking lanes provide motorists with opportunities to overtake slower-moving vehicles without
moving into the opposing traffic lane. This helps to reduce poor overtaking choices resulting from frustration or
impatience. As such, this treatment can help reduce overtaking-related head-on crashes (Neuman et al. 2003).
Also, by providing an additional lane between the general (non-overtaking) flow of traffic in both directions,
the overtaking lane provides a buffer between most traffic, helping to reduce head-on crashes involving
errant vehicles (Neuman et al. 2003).
Such a treatment may involve some construction work to install an additional lane, and therefore incurs both
cost, construction time and ongoing maintenance. However, as the resulting layout is only three lanes wide,
it requires less resources to implement than converting the roadway to a four-lane road, whilst also providing
for frequent overtaking opportunities (Neuman et al. 2003).
As well as its 2+1 road layout with WRMBs (Section 3.6.4), Sweden has also adopted 2+1 road configurations
without WRMBs. Instead of WRMBs, painted medians are used to divide traffic. This system is used on roads
with a maximum speed limit of 90 km/h, and has reduced FSI crashes by 40% (Carlsson 2009).
Jaehrig (2014) has demonstrated that even passing lanes as short as 0.61.2 km are long enough to reduce
the pressure on overtaking (for road sections with AADT of 5 00010 000 vpd). This may be an effective
countermeasure when there are constraints preventing more wide-scale implementation of passing lanes.
Care needs to be taken as the short overtaking distances encourage overtaking drivers to travel faster. This
has not been found to affect the safety of the road, but such overtaking lanes should not be positioned close
to intersections (Jaehrig 2014).
Such overtaking lanes may be of particular benefit on steep inclines, where slower vehicles are more
common, and on roads with limited sight distance, where drivers may otherwise begin overtaking
manoeuvres unaware of approaching traffic.
Figure 4.1:
Roadway featuring intermittent overtaking lanes
Source: ARRB Group.
Crash modification
Roads and Maritime (2015b) suggests that intermittent passing lanes can reduce head-on crashes by 25%
(CMF of 0.75).
The reductions in fatal and serious injury crashes are not as significant as 2+1 roads with WRMBs, being
about half that of the latter. However, compared against standard 13 m wide roads, FSI crash rates for
intermittent overtaking lanes without a median barrier were reduced by almost 40% (CMF of 0.60) (Carlsson
2009).
An expert panel commission by the US National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
determined that intermittent passing lanes on two-way, two-lane rural roads in one direction would lead to a
25% reduction in all crashes (CMF of 0.75). Where passing lanes are added to both directions of traffic, a
35% reduction (CMF of 0.65) is expected (Niessner 2005; Harkey et al. 2008).
These modification factors exclude any crash reduction taking place upstream or downstream of the site. It
might be presumed that there would be a crash reduction upstream and downstream of an area where an
overtaking lane has been applied, as drivers are encouraged to wait for safer opportunities to overtake
(Niessner 2005; Harkey et al. 2008; Carlsson 2009).
Considering upstream and downstream crashes as well as crashes at overtaking lanes, Bagdade et al.
(2011) indicate negligible change to total crashes (CMF of 1.00), but a 40% reduction in injury crashes (CMF
of 0.60). Considering target crashes only (head-on crashes included), the treatment resulted in a crash
reduction of 45% (CMF of 0.55).
It has been found that even short overtaking lanes, 0.61.2 km long, provided at least every 4 km, can
reduce FSI crashes related to overtaking by 65% (CMF of 0.35) (Jaehrig 2014).
Austroads (2010d) indicates a total crash reduction of 25% (CMF of 0.75) with the provision of overtaking lanes.
Treatment life
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) recommends a treatment life of 15 years for the installation of overtaking lanes.
4.3
Improved Pavement Surface
In 2001 in the US, 13% of cross-median crashes on interstate roads were due to wet surfaces, and a further
4% to roadways affected by snow and ice. A high number of wet weather crashes can be indicative of
crashes where the pavements skid resistance is a factor. By improving the level of skid resistance at a
location, the incidence of loss-of-control crashes in wet conditions would reasonably be expected to fall
(Neuman et al. 2008).
High-friction pavement treatments are most typically used at locations where hard braking may be required,
e.g. on downgrades or approaching a crossing or perhaps sharp curves. These treatments are generally only
effective on road surfaces that initially have a coefficient of friction below 0.7 (Harwood et al. 2014).
Crash modification
When applied at appropriate locations, improving the pavement surface can reduce total crash rate by 510%
(CMF of 0.900.95), entirely due to a reduction in wet and snowy weather related crashes (Harwood et al. 2014).
Roads and Maritime (2015b) have adopted a head-on CRF of 35% (CMF of 0.65) for head-on crashes in wet
weather.
Treatment life
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) indicates a service life of five years for high friction surface treatments. General
improvements for pavement friction can have a surface life of ten years.
4.4
Shoulder Treatments
Head-on crashes may result from drivers overcorrecting after drifting to the side of the road. By widening and
sealing shoulders, drivers are given more space to correct their vehicle path (Austroads 2010e).
Crash modification
Austroads (2009c) indicates a 40% reduction in head-on crashes (CMF of 0.60) from the sealing of
shoulders. Emer et al. (1991) in Austroads (2010e) indicate a 10% reduction in head-on crashes from
shoulder construction (CMF of 0.90) and a 20% reduction in head-on crashes from shoulder repairs (CMF of
0.80).
The Land Transport Safety Authority (1995) in Austroads (2010e) indicate a 45% reduction in head-on
crashes (CMF of 0.55) when shoulder improvements are made at crash blackspots on bends.
Gan, Shen and Rodriguez (2005) indicate a 45% reduction in head-on crashes from widening a paved
shoulder (CMF of 0.55) and a 30% reduction in all crashes (CMF of 0.70).
Treatment life
CMF Clearinghouse (2015) recommends a service life of 1020 years for treatments that improve or widen
the shoulder.
4.5
Improved Roadside Forgiveness
Austroads (2014a) reported that head-on crashes appear to be higher on roads featuring an unforgiving
roadside environment. Roadsides that appear unforgiving or give the impression of being very close to the
roadway may encourage drivers to travel closer to the centre of the road than they otherwise might. This
reduces the clearance between opposing traffic, and hence can increase the incidence of head-on crashes.
In response, obvious roadside hazards should be removed, relocated further from the roadway or shielded. If
roadside hazards are replaced by frangible items, these items should be visibly more forgiving, so that
drivers feel more comfortable travelling closer to them.
Crash modification
An extensive literature review has failed to identify any specific crash modification factors for improvements
to the roadside. It would be informative to undertake research as to the relationship between roadside
forgiveness and head-on crash rates.
Treatment life
Treatment life will vary based on the treatments required to improve roadside forgiveness. As a guide, CMF
Clearinghouse (2015) recommends a treatment life of 1020 years to relocate or remove fixed objects.
4.6
Curve Delineation and Warning
It is important that drivers set up for, and enter, curves at an appropriate speed in order to maintain control of
their vehicle. Without appropriate delineation to assist the driver, the driver may approach at too high speed,
or enter the curve along an inappropriate path, which may result in the vehicle crossing into oncoming traffic.
To warn and inform drivers of approaching curves, warning signs, speed advisory signs, chevron boards,
curve alignment markers (CAMs) and guideposts have all been traditionally used (Austroads 2010e).
More recently, vehicle activated signs have been designed to be used on the approach to curves to attract
greater attention from drivers to advise them to reduce travel speeds. These may be set to activate for a
short time when an approaching vehicle is exceeding a set threshold speed.
IIPMs, discussed in Section 2.6, are also an option to provide enhanced night-time delineation where curve
alignment will not permit headlights to adequately illuminate RRPMs.
Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 show examples of curve delineation and warning treatments.
Further information on curve delineation and warning methods can be found in Austroads (2014c).
Figure 4.2:
Delineation of curve with CAMs
Source: ARRB Group.

Figure 4.3:
Delineation and warning of curve with vehicle activated signage and chevron board
Source: TMR, private communication, February 2015.
Crash modification
Roads and Maritime (2015b) has adopted the following relevant head-on crash reduction factors:
CAMs: 20% (CMF of 0.80)

curve warning signs: 25% (CMF of 0.75)
guideposts: 10% (CMF of 0.90)
vehicle activated signs: 15% (CMF of 0.85).
Table 4.1 summarises various treatments available and their associated safety benefits as sourced from
Austroads (2010e).
Table 4.1:
Summary of various curve delineation treatments and respective crash reduction and modification
factors
Treatment type
Crash category
Crash reduction
Crash modification factor
Head-on
75%
0.25
All
50%
0.50
Daytime
40%
0.60
Night-time
55%
0.45
Lane departure
(including head-on)
20%
0.80
Curve warning signs
All
30%
0.70
Guide posts
All
20%
0.80
Vehicle activated signs
All
30%
0.70
CAMs
Improved curve delineation
Source: Austroads (2010e).
Treatment life
The following service lives for various options of treatment methods are suggested:
10 years for signage (warning signs, curve alignment markers, etc.) and posts that may be used to warn
and inform drivers of curves (Austroads 2010f)
35 years for improved delineation (Austroads 2010f)

510 years for vehicle activated signs (Austroads 2014c).
4.7
Addressing Wrong-way Movements
Some head-on crashes are a result of drivers mistakenly driving on the wrong side of a road or freeway.
Whilst such crashes are generally less common, they are more likely to result in fatal and serious injury
outcomes (Neuman et al. 2008). Wrong-way related crashes most frequently originate at freeway exit ramps
(i.e. when a driver enters the freeway via the exit ramp), and are more common during night-time, particularly
during the early morning hours (Cooner, Cothron & Ranft 2004).
Figure 4.4 shows signage used in the Barossa Valley in South Australia. Due to the high number of foreign
visitors on the road, signage such as this is included near stopping bays and along re-entry points to the
scenic drive to remind foreign drivers to travel on the correct side of the road, and thus avoid entering the
lane of opposing traffic.
Figure 4.4:
Drive on left in Australia signage used in the Barossa Valley
Source: Orderinchaos (2014).
Wrong way/go back signs may also be used at exits to motorways, facing away from the correct travel
stream, so any drivers mistakenly entering via the exit are aware to turn around to avoid a crash (Figure 4.5).
In order to improve the visibility of these signs, the following treatments may be considered (Morena & Leix
2012; Zhou & Rouholamin 2014):
lower placement of signs below the standard to ensure they are at drivers eye height
installation of wrong-way pavement marking arrows
use of oversized signs

reflective sheeting on the sign supports
enhancement of signs with LEDs
position of STOP bars on the exit ramps as a cue that the exit ramp is intended only for traffic leaving the
freeway
installation of pavement marking extensions guiding traffic past the exit ramp and onto the entrance ramp
delineation of traffic island to highlight the separation between the lamps
multiple signs on same post
inclusion of FREEWAY ENTRANCE signs for all on ramps
reflective pavement markers shining red for wrong way traffic
red delineator installed on guardrail along exit ramp, facing wrong way traffic.
Figure 4.5:
Wrong way/go back signage at motorway exit (inset shows greater detail)
2015 Google
Crash modification
It appears that, due to the low number of such crash scenarios, no literature has been found discussing the
crash reductions resulting from treatments to address wrong-way movements. However, due to their likely
high severity, it is still important to address wrong-way movements where there is an increased likelihood of
such dangerous actions.
Treatment life
There are a number of methods available to address wrong-side-of-road driving. As a guide, the following
service lives for various treatment options are suggested:
10 years for relevant signage (Austroads 2010f)

35 years for pavement markings delineation (Austroads 2010f)
5 years for RRPMs (Austroads 2014c).
5. Conclusion
The primary objective of this report is to present an overview of median and centreline treatments to reduce
head-on crashes. However, this report also introduces the road safety practitioner to other methods available
to treat head-on crashes.
The report provides information on well-proven treatments and methods in addressing head-on crashes,
including any issues associated with their implementation that should be considered prior to their adoption.
This report has also presented some innovative treatments many of which have yet to be formally
evaluated, i.e. there is currently insufficient data to confirm their benefits. Nonetheless, these methods are
expected to address head-on crashes, and may be of benefit in situations where the crash history site does
not justify the expense associated with more established treatments.
Appendix A summarises the road engineering based treatments discussed in this report, including an
indication of their likely performance (stated in the form of crash modification factors), and typical
characteristics that may inform the decision to adopt this treatment. Where information is lacking or not yet
available, the table also identifies areas of research that could benefit understanding of road safety solutions.
It is important to note that the table is an overview only, and the reader is advised to refer to the in-text
details for greater detail. The reader is also advised to consult with the relevant jurisdiction for the crash
modification factors, costs and treatment lives used for local cost-benefit analysis methods, as well as any
specific policies or design specifications pertaining to that treatment for the jurisdiction. Consultation with
manufacturers is also recommended in order to determine any product-specific requirements.
References
Aga, M & Okada, A 2003, Analysis of vehicle stability control (VSC)s effectiveness from accident data,
International technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, 18th, 2003, Nagoya, Japan,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, USA, 7 pp.
Alba, JJ, Maza, M, Valladares, D & Dvila, A 2014, Innovative concepts for smart road restraint systems
(RRS) to provide greater safety for motorcyclists, Transport research arena, 5th, 2014, Paris, IFSTTAR,
Marne-la-Valle, France, 10 pp.
AllState LineMarking Australia n.d., Products & services, webpage, AllState LineMarking Australia, Brisbane,
QLD, viewed 29 July 2015, <linemarkinginaustralia.com.au/products-services.html>.
Alluri, P, Haleem, K & Gan, A 2013a, In-service performance evaluation (ISPE) for G4 (1S) type of strongpost W-beam guardrail system and cable median barrier: volume I, Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Alluri, P, Haleem, K & Gan, A 2013b, In-service performance evaluation (ISPE) for G4 (1S) type of strongpost W-beam guardrail system and cable median barrier: volume II, Florida Department of Transportation,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2011, A policy of geometric design of
highways and streets, 6th edn, AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
Australasian New Car Assessment Program 2015, ANCAP safety ratings explained, ANCAP, Canberra,
ACT, viewed 27 July 2015, <https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained>.
Australian Transport Council 2011, National road safety strategy 2011-2020, ATC, Canberra, ACT.
Austroads 2009a, Guide to traffic management part 10: traffic control and communication devices,
AGTM10-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009b, Evaluation of the safety impact of centre-of-the-road wire rope barrier (WRB) on undivided
rural roads, AP-T135-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009c, Heavy vehicle safety in rural and remote areas, AP-T136-09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010a, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 8: rural head-on crashes, AP-T153-10,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010b, Improving roadside safety, AP-T142-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010c, Guide to road design part 6: roadside design, safety and barriers, AGRD06-10, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010d, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 6: crash reduction factors, AP-T151-10,
Austroads 2010e, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 8: rural head-on crashes, AP-T153-10,
Austroads 2010f, Road safety engineering risk assessment: part 4: treatment life for road safety measures,
AP-T149-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010g, Guide to road design part 4A: unsignalised and signalised intersections, 2 nd edn,
AGRD04A-10, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010h, Reviewing ITS technologies and road safety opportunities, AP-T157-10, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010i, Guide to road design part 3: geometric design, 2nd edn, AGRD03-10, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2013, Guide to road safety part 1: road safety overview, 3rd edn, AGRS01-13, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2014a, Investigation of key crash types: run-off-road and head-on crashes in urban areas: final
report, AP-R450-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014b, Improving roadside safety: summary report, AP-R437-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014c, Methods or reducing speeds on rural roads: compendium of good practice, AP-R449-14,
Austroads 2015a, Road geometry study for improved rural safety, AP-T295-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015b, Austroads glossary of terms, 5th edn, AP-C87-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015c, Guide to road safety part 8: treatment of crash locations, AGRS08-15, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Avelar, RE & Carlson, PJ 2014, Link between pavement marking retroreflectivity and night crashes on
Michigan two-lane highways, Transportation Research Record, no. 2404, pp. 59-67.
Bagdade, J, Ceifetz, A, Myers, M, Redinger, C, Persaud, BN & Lyon, CA 2011, Evaluating the performance
and making best use of passing relief lanes, report RC-1565, Michigan Department of Transportation,
Lansing, MI, USA.
Bagui, SK, Ghosh, A & Jha, SR 2004, Highway design considering glare, Indian Highways, vol. 32, no. 12,
pp. 19-28.
Bagui, SK & Ghosh, A 2009, Development of guidelines for median tree planting as median barrier, anti
glare screen and anti glare screen height for unsymmetrical curve, Indian Highways, vol. 37, no. 4,
pp. 33-50.
Bahar, G, Wales, J & Longtin-Nobel, L 2001, Synthesis of best practices for the implementation of shoulder
and centreline rumble strips, Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Bahar, G, Masliah, M, Erwin, T, Tan, E & Hauer, E 2006, Pavement marking materials and markers: realworld relationship between retroreflectivity and safety over time, NCHRP web-only document 92, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, viewed 24 March 2016, <
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_webdoc_92.pdf>.
Bambach, MR, Grzebieta, RH & McIntosh, AS 2013, The crash mechanics of fatal motorcycle-barrier
collisions in Australasia, Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 66-77.
BP Bitumen 2012, Guide to road maintenance solutions, BP, Altona North, Vic.
Burdett, B 2011, Wide centreline trial technical note, NZRF/RIAA roadmarking conference, 2011, Rotorua,
New Zealand, New Zealand Roadmarkers Federation, Auckland, NZ, 9 pp.
Burton, D, Delaney, A, Newstead, S, Logan, D & Fildes, B 2004, Evaluation of anti-lock braking systems
effectiveness, report 04/01, Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, Noble Park North, Vic.
Candappa, N, DElia, A, Corben, B & Newstead, S 2009, Evaluation of the effectiveness of flexible barriers
along Victorian roads, report 291, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Carlsson, A 2009, Evaluation of 2+1-roads with cable barrier, VTI report 636A, Swedish National Road and
Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linkping, Sweden.
Chimba, D, Emaasit, D, Allen, S, Hurst, B & Nelson, M 2014, Factors affecting median cable barrier crash
frequency: new insights, Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 6277.
Chislett, W & Robinson, TL 2010, Investigating the real-world effectiveness of introducing mandatory fitment
of front underrun protection to heavy goods vehicles, report PPR515, Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne, UK.
Chouinard, A & Lcuyer, JF 2011, A study of the effectiveness of electronic stability control in Canada,
Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 451-60.
CMF Clearinghouse 2015, Synthesis of countermeasure service life and crash severity costs user guide,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA, viewed 27 August 2015,
<http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/resources_servlifecrashcostguide.cfm>.
Cleaver, S, Jurisich, I & Dunn, R 2007, Safety implications of flush medians in Auckland City: further
analyses, research report 312, Land Transport New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
Connell, D, Babic, I & Pattison, G 2011, Newell Highway wide centre line trial, report CTLREEr03, RTA
NSW Centre for Road Safety, North Sydney, NSW.
Cooner, SA, Cothron, AS & Ranft, SE 2004, Wrong-way driving on freeways in Texas: problems, issues and
countermeasures, report 0-4128-S, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, USA.
Delhaye, A 2011, How to improve road infrastructure through user-driven policies: the case of motorcyclistfriendly road restraint systems, Australasian road research, policing and education conference, 2011,
Perth, Western Australia, Insurance Commission of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 10 pp.
Department of State Growth 2014, 2 plus 1 road design, Department of State Growth, Hobart, Tas, viewed 2
September 2015, <http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/roadsafety/roads/2_plus_1_road_design>.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2013, Guidelines for road design on brownfield sites, Department
of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, QLD.
Derr, BR 2005, Application of European 2+1 roadway designs, NCHRP research results digest no. 275,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
USA.
Donnell, ET, Karwa, V & Sathyanarayanan, S 2009, A methodology to explore the relationship between
pavement marking retroreflectivity and traffic crash frequency on highways in North Carolina: application
of artificial neural networks and the generalized estimating equations, Transportation Research Board
annual meeting, 88th, 2008, Washington, DC, USA, TRB, Washington, DC, USA, 24 pp.
Elvik, R & Vaa, T 2004, Handbook of road safety measures, Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
EuroRAP 2008, Barriers to change: designing safe roads for motorcyclists: position paper on motorcycles
and crash barriers, EuroRAP, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK.
Fitzharris, M, Fildes, B, Newstead, S & Logan, D 2006, Crash-based evaluation of Australian Design Rule
69 (full frontal impact occupant protection), report 2006-03, Australian Transport Safety Bureau,
Canberra, ACT.
Gabler, C 2007, The risk of fatality in motorcycle crashes with roadside barriers, International technical
conference on experimental safety vehicles, 20th, 2007, Lyon, France, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, DC, USA, 5 pp.
Gan, A, Shen, J & Rodriguez, A 2005, Update of Florida crash reduction factors and countermeasures to
improve the development of district safety improvement projects, Florida Department of Transportation,
Grzebieta, R, Bambach, M & McIntosh, A 2013, Motorcyclist impacts into roadside barriers: is the European
crash test standard comprehensive enough?, Transportation Research Record, no. 2377, pp. 8491.
Hallenbeck, ME, Briglia, PM, Howard, ZN & St Martin, AS 2013, In-service evaluation of major urban arterials
with landscaped medians: phase III, report WA-RD 636.3, Washington State Department of
Transportation, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Harkey, DL, Srinivasan, R, Baek, J, Council, FM, Eccles, K, Lefler, N, Gross, F, Persaud, B, Lyon, C, Hauer,
E & Bonneson, JA 2008, Accident modification factors for traffic engineering and ITS improvements,
NCHRP report no. 617, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Harwood, DW, Gilmore, DK, Graham, JL, OLaughlin, MK, Smiley, AM & Smahel, TP 2014, Factors
contributing to median encroachments and cross-median crashes, NCHRP report 790, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Haynes, R 2009, Frustrated drivers allegedly use median strip on The Norwest Boulevard, Glenwood, Daily
Telegraph, 22 September 2009, viewed 24 March 2016,
<http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/travel/frustrated-drivers-allegedly-use-median-strip-on-the-norwestboulevard-glenwood/story-e6frezhr-1225777770799>.
Highway Engineering in Australia 2008, Intelligent road studs: improve safety and visibility on rural roads,
Highway Engineering in Australia, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 10.
Hirasawa, M, Tetsuya, T, Motoki, A & Kazuo, S 2006, Developing optimal centerline rumble strips and
evaluating their safety benefits on national highways in Hokkaido, Japan, Transportation Research Board
annual meeting, 85th, 2006, Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA, 15 pp.
Hye, A 2011, The effects of electronic stability control (ESC) on crashes: an update, Accident Analysis &
Prevention, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1148-59.
Ingal Civil 2015a, Stack cushion, Ingal Civil, Minto, NSW, viewed 24 March 2016,
<http://www.ingalcivil.com.au/products/road-safety-barriers/motorcyclist-barriers/stack-cushions>.
Ingal Civil 2015b, Ingal rub rail, Ingal Civil, Minto, NSW, viewed 24 March 2016,
<http://www.ingalcivil.com.au/products/road-safety-barriers/motorcyclist-barriers/ingal-rub-rail>.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 2012, Status report Lane departure warning, vol. 47, no. 5.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 2014, Status report Quick work Better autobrake helps more models
earn top ratings for front crash prevention, vol. 49, no. 4.
Jaarsma, R, Louwerse, R, Dijkstra, A, de Vries, J & Spaas, J 2011, Making minor rural road networks safer:
the effects of 60 km/h-zones, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1508-15.
Jaehrig, T 2014, Safe passing as a measure to improve road safety on rural roads in Germany, ARRB
conference, 26th, 2014, Sydney, NSW, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 13 pp.
Jama, HH, Grzebieta, RH, Friswell, R & McIntosh, AS 2011, Characteristics of fatal motorcycle crashes into
roadside safety barriers in Australia and New Zealand, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 43, no. 3, pp.
65260.
Jamieson, N, Frith, W, Lester, T & Dravitzki, V 2013, Stability of motorcycles on audio tactile profiled (ATP)
roadmarkings, NZ Transport Agency research report 526, NZ Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ.
Kar, K & Weeks, RS 2009, Centerline rumble strips for reducing lane departure crashes, Accident
Reconstruction Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 33-5.
Lambert, J & Rechnitzer, G 2002, Review of truck safety: stage 1: frontal, side and rear underrun protection,
report 194, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Vic.
Levett, SP, Job, RFS & Tang, J 2009, Centreline treatment countermeasures to address crossover crashes,
Australasian road safety research policing education conference, 2009, Sydney, NSW, Roads and Traffic
Authority, Sydney, NSW, 14 pp.
Lilley, M 2012, The NZ Transport Agency Highways And Network Operations Traffic Control Devices trials
updated, Australasian road safety research policing education conference, 2012, Wellington, New
Zealand, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, NZ, 8 pp.
Lyon, C, Persaud, B & Eccles, K 2015, Safety evaluation of centerline plus shoulder rumble strips, report
FHWA-HRT-15-048, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Virginia, USA.
Mackie, H, Marsh, F & Pilgrim, M 2011, Do safe-hit post medians have a place in New Zealands safe
roads system?, Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) transportation conference,
2011, Auckland, New Zealand, Harding Consultants, Christchurch, NZ, 12 pp.
Main Roads Western Australia 2014, Design of kerbing, MRWA, Perth, WA, viewed 24 March 2016,
<https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/StandardsTechnical/RoadandTrafficEngineering/Road
sideItems/Pages/Design_of_Kerbing.aspx>.
Marsh, F & Pilgrim, M 2010, Evaluation of narrow median wire rope barrier installation on Centennial
Highway, New Zealand, Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 34-41.
Migletz, J & Graham, J 2002, Long-term pavement marking practices: a synthesis of highway practice,
NCHRP synthesis 306, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Ministry of Transport 2015, Electronic stability control, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, New Zealand,
viewed 24 March 2016,
<http://www.transport.govt.nz/land/electronic-stability-control/>.
Morena, DA & Leix, TJ 2012, Strategies to curtail wrong-way crashes on freeways, Accident Reconstruction
Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 29-34.
Moore, R & Cutler, CD 1992, The effect of plantations on median accidents, report CALTRANS-TO-92-2,
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Sacramento, CA, USA.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2011, Countermeasures that work: a highway safety
countermeasure guide for state highway safety offices, 6th edn, report DOT HS 811 444, NHTSA,
Washington, DC, USA.
Neuman, TR, Pfefer, R, Slack, KL, Hardy, KK, McGee, H, Prothe, L, Eccles, K & Council, F 2003, Guidance
for implementation of the AASHTO strategic highway safety plan: volume 4: a guide for addressing headon collisions, NCHRP report no. 500, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Neuman, TR, Nitzel, JJ, Antonucci, N, Nevill, S & Stein, W 2008, Guidance for implementation of the
AASHTO strategic highway safety plan: volume 20: a guide for addressing head-on crashes on freeways,
NCHRP report no. 500, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Nilsson, K & Prior, N 2004, Wire rope safety barriers and the Pacific Highway program: RTA research and
investigations, Road safety research, policing and education conference, 2004, Perth, Western Australia,
Road Safety Council of Western Australia, Perth, WA, vol. 2, 10 pp.
Niessner, CW 2005, Crash reduction factors for traffic engineering and intelligent transportation system (ITS)
improvements: state-of-knowledge report, Research Results Digest 299, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Washington, DC, USA.
Olsen, AN, Schultz, GG, Thurgood, DJ & Reese, CS 2011, Hierarchical Bayesian modeling for before and
after studies, Transportation Research Board annual meeting, 90th, 2011, Washington, DC, TRB,
Washington, DC, USA, 16 pp.
Olson, D, Sujka, M & Manchas, B 2013, Performance analysis of centerline and shoulder rumble strips
installed in combination in Washington State, report WA-RD 799.1, Washington State Department of
Transportation, Olympia, WA, USA.
Orderinchaos 2014, Drive on Left in Australia, sign at Bethany, SA, Wikimedia Commons, viewed 24 March
2016, <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drive_on_Left_in_Australia_sign_Bethany_SA.jpg>.
Partridge, R 2015, No room for a median treatment? Think again, Institution of Professional Engineers New
Zealand (IPENZ) transportation conference, 2015, Christchurch, New Zealand, Institution of Professional
Engineers New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, 7 pp.
Persaud, BN, Retting, RA & Lyon, CA 2004, Crash reduction following installation of centerline rumble strips
on rural two-lane roads, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1073-9.
Roads and Traffic Authority 2010, Delineation: section 16: guide posts and delineation of safety barriers,
Roads and Traffic Authority, North Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2015a, Road users handbook, Roads and Maritime, Sydney, NSW.
Roads and Maritime Services 2015b, Nomination form for councils, Roads and Maritime, viewed 24 March
2016, <http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/business-industry/partners-andsuppliers/lgr/downloads/nomination-form-bcr-ratio-2016-2017.xlsm>.
Ross, HE, Sicking, DL, Zimmer, RA & Michie, JD 1993, Recommended procedures for the safety
performance evaluation of highway features, NCHRP report 350, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, USA.
Sayed, T, deLeur, P & Pump, J 2010, Impact of rumble strips on collision reduction on highways in British
Columbia, Canada: comprehensive before-and-after safety study, Transportation Research Record, no.
2148, pp. 9-15.
Schultz, GG, Thurgood, DJ, Olsen, AN & Reese, CS 2011, Analyzing raised median safety impacts using
Bayesian methods, Transportation Research Record, no. 2223, pp. 96-103.
Smadi, O, Hawkins, N, Nlenanya, I & Aldemir-Bektas, B 2010, Pavement markings and safety, report IHRB
Project TR-580, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA, USA.
Stine, JS, Hamblin, BS, Brennan, SN & Donnell, ET 2010, Analyzing the influence of median cross-section
design on highway safety using vehicle dynamics simulations, Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 42,
no. 6, pp. 1769-77.
Styles, T, Cairney, P, Studwick, G & Purtill, S 2003, Trial and evaluations of internally illuminated pavement
markers, Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, 2003, Sydney, NSW, Roads and
Traffic Authority, Sydney, NSW, vol. 2, pp. 550-5.
Sullivan, EC 2003, Safety of median trees with narrow clearances on urban conventional highways,
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Sacramento, CA, USA.
Tarko, AP, Villwock, NM & Blond, N 2008, Effect of median design on rural freeway safety: flush medians
with concrete barriers and depressed medians, Transportation Research Record, no. 2060, pp. 29-37.
Torbic, DJ, Hutton, JM, Bokenkroger, CD, Bauer, KM, Harwood, DW, Gilmore, DK, Dunn, JM, Ronchetto, JJ,
Donnell, ET, Sommer, HJ, Garvey, P, Persaud, B & Lyon, C 2009, Guidance for the design and
application of shoulder and centerline rumble strips, NCHRP report no. 641, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Traffic Technology Today 2014, Germany trials green markings on three-lane highways, Traffic Technology
Today, viewed 24 March 2016,
<http://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/news.php?NewsID=61473>.
Transport Canada 2013, Electronic stability control, Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, viewed 24 March
2016, <http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-1178.htm>.
Transport for NSW 2012, Head-on crashes with heavy vehicles: relevance of safety barriers, report TSR
12/01, TfNSW, Chippendale, NSW.
Turner, D & Mansfield, E 1990, Urban trees and roadside safety, Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol.
116, no. 1, pp. 90-104.
VicRoads 2005, Use and operation of internally illuminated pavement markers, Traffic Management Note no.
20, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
VicRoads 2014, Traffic engineering manual volume 2 chapter 15: pavement markings, 5th edn,, VicRoads,
Kew, Vic.
Villwock, N, Blond, N & Tarko, AP 2009, Safety impact of cable barriers on rural interstates, Transportation
Research Board annual meeting, 88th, Washington, DC, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.
Volvo Trucks Australia 2011, The new Volvo FE Euro 5, Volvo Trucks Australia, Wacol, QLD, viewed 24
March 2016, <http://www.volvotrucks.com/trucks/australia-market/en-au/trucks/volvo-feeuro5/cab/Pages/cab-exterior.aspx>.
Whittaker, A 2012, The safety benefit of continuous narrow painted median strips: continuous narrow
painted median trial: preliminary findings, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, QLD.
World Highways 2015, The moveable barriers time has arrived, The Global Road Safety Review 2015,
World Highways, Kent, UK.
Zhou, H & Rouholamin, MP (eds) 2014, Proceedings of the 2013 national wrong-way driving summit, report
FHWA-ICT-14-009, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, IL, USA.
Standards Australia
AS/NZS 3845.1:2015, Road safety barriers systems and devices part 1: road safety barrier systems.
AS 1742.2-2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices part 2: traffic control devices for general use.
Summary of Treatments
Most effective at
reducing crash:
Range for:
Treatment
Centreline
Crash reduction
factors
Crash
modification
factors
Head-on: 15%
0.85
Standard (all): 30%
0.70
No-overtaking zone
(all): 35%
0.65
Raised profile Head-on: 2055%

0.450.80
centrelines
FSI head-on: 2565% 0.350.75
All: 1015%
0.850.90
All FSI: 1030%
0.700.90
Raised profile Head-on: 3565%

centreline
FSI head-on: 30%
and
Lane departure:
edgelines
2065%
Indicative cost(1)
$400$5 000/km
$1 000$9 000/km
Appropriate along no-overtaking zones

Most effective at addressing fatigue-related or distractionrelated loss-of-control crashes, including head-on crashes
Consideration should be given to noise levels in urban areas
$3 000$14 000/km
Suitable where insufficient warrants for raised profile

centrelines
$2 500$17 500/km
$2 500/km
Incidence Severity
On rural roads, AADT over 300 vpd

On urban roads, AADT over 2500 vpd
Curve/crest profile may warrant centrelines on lower volume
roads
Appropriate along no-overtaking zones

Most effective at addressing fatigue-related or distractionrelated head-on crashes
Consideration should be given to noise levels in urban areas
0.350.65
0.70
0.350.80
FSI lane departure:

45%
0.55
All: 20%
0.80
Profiled
All night-time: 10
thermoplastic 15%
stripes
0.850.90
Road
marking tape
0.850.90
All night-time: 10
15%
Typical
treatment life
(years)
Typical road characteristics
For treatments requiring minimal markings to perform under

severe conditions
Most effective at
reducing crash:
Range for:
Treatment
RRPMs
IIPMs
Crash reduction
factors
Crash
modification
factors
Head-on: 15%
0.85
All: 5%
0.95
All night-time dry:

10%
0.90
All night-time wet:

20%
0.80
Typical
treatment life
(years)
Indicative cost(1)
$600/km
For use where alignment does not permit adequate headlight

illumination of RRPMs
For use where night-time delineation over long distances is
required
$2 000/km
Too narrow for raised median

Minimum width of 0.6 m, ideal minimum width of 1.0 m
Care should be taken to prevent drivers treating median as a
transit lane
$12 000/km
85th percentile speed below 75 km/h only

Useful substitute when raised medians unsuitable (narrow
width, drainage issues)
$25$90 per unit
1.0 m width
Appropriate for roads as narrow as 7 m (lanes of 3 m width)
35
$14 000$35 000/km
For speed zones greater than 60 km/h

Minimum length of 10 m at 60 km/h to 40 m at 100 km/h
Care should be taken to prevent drivers treating median as a
transit lane
20
$110$300/m2
30
$50 000$70 000/km

Incidence Severity
As augmentation of centrelines wherever appropriate
No findings available
Painted
median
Head-on: 40%
0.60
All: 1520%
0.800.85
Pavement
bars
Wide
centreline
treatment
Head-on: 5080%
All: 60%
0.40
Raised
median
Head-on: 60%
0.40
All: 4055%
0.450.60
All FSI: 45%
0.55
0.200.50
Barrier
kerbing
Median
barriers
All: 25%
1.25
All Injury: 30%
0.70
All fatal: 45%
0.55
For speed zones less than 70 km/h
Most effective at
reducing crash:
Range for:
Treatment
Crash reduction
factors
Rigid median Head-on: 100%
barriers
Single vehicle: 120%
Semi-rigid
median
barriers
Wire rope
median
safety
barriers
Crash
modification
factors
Typical
treatment life
(years)
Indicative cost(1)
30
$400 000
$500 000/km
Not on inside of very tight curves

Either within 200 mm from kerb or separated significantly
from it
Minimum length of 30 m
30
$110 000
$200 000/km
30
$110 000
$350 000/km
30
$150 000
$400 000/km
Indefinite (with
refurbishment)
None provided

Incidence Severity
0.0
2.2
Offset 13 m from edge of lane (no more than 4 m)

Minimum length of 2030 m
Injury: 1510%
0.901.15
Fatal: 90%
0.10
Head-on: 95%
0.05
Head-on (cars): 98%
0.02
Head-on (trucks):
7590%
0.100.25
Head-on: 6095%
0.050.40
Single vehicle:
40 to 95%
1.401.95
All FSI: 075%
0.251.00
Lateral slope < 10:1

Tension not affected by horizontal or vertical radius
Sufficient displacement from other barriers and hazards for
deflection
0.20
13 m cross-section
2+1 road with All fatal: 80%

WRMB
Motorcycle FSI:
4050%
0.500.60
Fatal (110 km/h): 75% 0.25

Fatal (90 km/h): 80%
0.20
Severe injury: 55%
0.45
Moveable
barriers
Assumed as for rigid barriers
Flexible
bollards
Median
turning bays
Head-on: 35%
0.65
All: 30%
0.70
Widen
median
Head-on: 075%
0.251.00
All: 050%
0.501.00
As ford rigid barriers, but on locations where tidal flow is

required during peak periods
Where installations of wire rope barrier not justified by crash

history
30
$50$250 per unit
At intersections with history of rear-end as well as head-on

crashes
720
$10 000/km
520
$100$400/m2
Should not be used on roads that are prone to congestion
Most effective at
reducing crash:
Range for:
Treatment
Crash reduction
factors
Median
Head-on: 20%
cross-section
Crash
modification
factors
0.80
Pavement
edge drop-off

Incidence Severity
Trapezoidal median cross-sections have lower head-on
incidence than v-ditch cross-sections
Traversable median edge allows recovery of errant vehicle
Typical
treatment life
(years)
Indicative cost(1)
1020
$750 000/km
$20 000$80 000/km
Care not to encourage drivers to treat median shoulder as

break down area
1020
$50$100/m2
For use when road geometry promotes opposing headlight

glare that is not blocked by median barrier
10
$100 000
$500 000/km
Low to negligible
Tree trunks should not exceed 100 mm diameter once fully

grown
15
$300 per tree
For use where high speeds (legal or illegal) are a factor in

head-on crash occurrence
10
$1 000/km
15
$50 000/km
Median
shoulder
FSI: 015%
Median glare
treatments
Median
plantations
0.851.00
Speed
Head-on (from 80 to
management 60 km/h): 20%
0.80
Intermittent
overtaking
lanes
Head-on: 25%
0.75
Target crashes: 45%
0.55
All FSI: 40%65%
0.350.60
All injury: 40%
0.60
All: 25%
0.75
Improved
pavement
surface
Head-on: 35%
0.56
All:510%
0.900.95
Shoulder
treatments
Head-on: 1045%
0.550.90
All: 30%
0.70
Improved
roadside
forgiveness
Curve
delineation/
warning
Head-on: 1075%
All: 2050%
Where head-on crashes are associated with unsafe

overtaking manoeuvres
Wet/snowy environments
Where hard braking required (i.e. downhill gradients or sharp
curves)
510
$5$150/m2
Appropriate shoulders reduce the incidence of drivers of

vehicle drifting to the left overcorrecting into oncoming traffic
1020
$100$300/m2
Roadsides that appear more forgiving encourage drivers to

travel further from the centreline, increasing the buffer
between opposing traffic
1020
None provided
310
$3 500/curve
0.250.90
0.500.80
Appropriate where head-on crashes occur on or near curves
Most effective at
reducing crash:
Range for:
Treatment
Crash reduction
factors
Addressing
wrong-way
movements
1
Crash
modification
factors

Incidence Severity
Roads with high tourist volumes (e.g. nationally significant

routes, airport access roads)
Motorway exits
Typical
treatment life
(years)
Indicative cost(1)
310
$4 000/treatment
Costs are a guide only to assist in comparing treatments. Practitioners are advised to consult with their local jurisdiction for more accurate cost estimates when preparing a costbenefit analysis. Costs may vary based on the jurisdiction, project scope, site location and other environmental factors.
Other Countermeasures to Address

Head-on Crashes
The previous sections of this report have discussed road engineering and speed management techniques to
address head-on crashes. Whilst this is the primary focus of this Austroads report, a Safe System approach
requires consideration of all four pillars in the travel system to address a safety concern. As such, this
section briefly discusses interventions based on the other two remaining pillars in a Safe System, safer road
users and vehicles.
B.1
Driver Interventions
Fatigue Management
Fatigue has been identified as a contributing factor to head-on crashes. This may be due to travelling long
distances (more common in rural environments) and chronic sleep impairment, such as from shift work (more
common in urban environments) (Austroads 2014a; Austroads 2010e).
Measures to encourage drivers to only drive having had sufficient sleep may be difficult to implement when
sleep impairment is a chronic lifestyle issue, such as associated with shift workers. However, work-related
fatigued driving may be managed through employer-based policies and programs (National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration 2011).
Driver Distraction
Driver distraction or inattention is also associated with head-on crashes in urban and rural environments
(Austroads 2014a; Austroads 2010e).
Measures to encourage drivers to avoid distractions in the car may be difficult as many drivers will consider
some distractions as important and common to most drivers, and therefore will not give them up. This is
especially difficult as drivers are typically poor judges of the impact of distracting activities on their driving
performance (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2011).
B.2
Vehicle-based Treatments
Front Underrun Protection
In a head-on crash, when passenger cars and trucks have differing heights and geometries, parts of the car
may travel under, or underrun the truck structure. This is known as vehicle incompatibility (Lambert &
Rechnitzer 2002).
Crashes between passenger vehicles and trucks are generally most severe when occurring head-on, with
head-on crashes involving light trucks of only three tonnes (twice the mass of passenger vehicles) at high
risk of resulting in fatal or serious injuries, even on urban arterial roads. This is due to both the high kinetic
energy transfers resulting from the mass of the truck, and the potential for underrun. As a result, the majority
of fatal crashes between passenger vehicles and trucks are head-on crashes (Lambert & Rechnitzer 2002).
In head-on crashes featuring underrun, any amount of underrun may significantly compromise the
crashworthiness of the underrun vehicle. Once underrun occurs, the vehicles ability to absorb crash energy
is compromised, and there is increased risk of intrusion into the occupant compartment. Considering the high
potential severity of head-on crashes with trucks, it is important to maximise the crashworthiness of the
vehicles involved, by addressing underrun (Lambert & Rechnitzer 2002).
Whilst Lambert and Rechnitzer (2002) recommend front underrun protection for all trucks (see Figure B 1)
with a gross vehicle mass (GVM) greater than 3.0 tonnes, the current Vehicle Standard (Australian Design
Rule 84/00 Front Underrun Impact Protection) 2009 only requires front underrun protection for heavy
goods with optional compliance for medium goods vehicles with a GVM greater than 4.5 tonnes.
Figure B 1:
Truck fitted with front underrun protection (circled)
Source: Volvo Trucks Australia (2011).
Crash modification
Penetration of front underrun protection on the heavy vehicle fleet is still low, and as a result, statistical
analysis of the benefits of this technology are so far inconclusive (Chislett & Robinson 2010). It should be
expected that, by allowing vehicles to maximise their crashworthiness, the severity of any crashes should be
lower when front underrun protection is in place. However, considering the high forces involved in head-on
crashes with trucks, it is likely that many crashes will continue to result in fatal and serious injuries despite
this advance.
Anti-lock Braking Systems

Anti-lock braking systems (ABS) are designed to prevent wheel lock-up in braking. ABS detects the onset of
wheel lock-up and limits braking pressure to prevent lock-up occurring. ABS will then reapply braking until
the onset of wheel lock-up, at which point it releases again. This allows braking efficiency to be close to the
maximum possible. Drivers will sense a pulsating effect when ABS is applied as the brakes are constantly
applied and released throughout activation (Burton et al. 2004).
ABS allows for maximum braking efficiency, even on surfaces with poor skid resistance. As a result, drivers
should be able to avoid some collisions altogether by bringing their vehicle to a complete stop earlier than
otherwise. In other situations where collisions may be unavoidable, with improved braking efficiency, the
speed of impact should be lower, thus reducing the severity of impact (Burton et al. 2004).
As wheels do not lock up during braking with ABS, the technology also allows for drivers to steer whilst
braking (Burton et al. 2004).
Crash modification
Burton et al. (2004) report that ABS has been found to reduce the rate of head-on collisions. Studies have
shown a reduction in multi-vehicle collisions ranging from 10% to 40% (CMF of
0.600.90), with a greater reduction for collisions in wet or slippery conditions.
Electronic Stability Control

Electronic stability control (ESC) is designed to avoid loss of control of a vehicle by tracking the vehicles
steering input and direction of travel. When steering and direction of travel are not corresponding, ESC
applies the brakes. To correct oversteer (when the back of the vehicle slides out), either the nearside or
offside front brake is applied, depending on the side where there is loss of control. Similarly, for understeer
(when the front of the vehicle starts to skid), braking is applied to the nearside or offside rear, depending on
the direction of loss of control (Chouinard & Lcuyer 2011) (see Figure B 2).
From November 2011, ESC was made mandatory for all new passenger vehicles sold in Australia (Hye
2011). From 1 July 2015, ESC was made mandatory for all new passenger vehicles sold in New Zealand
(Ministry of Transport 2015).
Crash modification
Burton et al. (2004) and Aga and Okada (2003) both indicate that ESC can reduce the rate of head-on
crashes by 30% (CMF of 0.70). This technology is more effective for severe head-on crashes, reducing their
incidence by 40% (CMF of 0.60) (Aga & Okada 2003).
Figure B 2:
Overview of effect of Electronic Stability Control4
Source: Transport Canada (2013).
Lane Departure Warning

Lane departure warning systems use sensors or a video camera to detect the position of the lane or edgeline
on a road relative to the vehicles position. If the line is being approached without a lane change indication
being activated, the system alerts the driver (Austroads 2010h).
A more advanced version of this technology is lane departure prevention, which will gently steer the vehicle
back into its lane if it begins to deviate. This may prove more effective than a warning system that relies on
driver input (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 2012).
Crash modification
Austroads (2010h) has provided an estimate, based on manufacturers estimates, that this technology would
reduce all crashes by about 25% (CMF of 0.75).
Note, diagram is sourced from Transport Canada and depicts vehicles travelling on the right-hand side of the road.
Collision Warning and Prevention Systems

Collision warning systems use sensors or video cameras to detect whether a collision may be imminent.
Passive systems then warn the driver of the collision, and prepare the vehicles passive safety systems for a
collision (e.g. pretension seatbelts). Active collision prevention systems will activate the vehicles braking in
order to avoid a collision. These systems have been identified as being effective to avoid or reduce the
severity of both head-on and run-off-road collisions (Austroads 2010h).
Crash modification
Austroads (2010h) indicates that collision warning systems are expected to reduce fatal crashes (of any
crash type) by 1015% (CMF of 0.850.90) and serious injury crashes by 1020% (CMF of 0.800.90).
However, this excludes the additional crashes associated with a transfer of otherwise fatal crashes to serious
injury crashes. A net reduction in serious injury crashes is still expected.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2014) indicates that forward collision warning systems can reduce
multiple vehicle crashes by 5% (CMF of 0.95). Collision prevention systems reduce such crashes by 1015%
(CMF of 0.850.90).
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2014) indicates that a combined lane departure and collision warning
system reduces multiple vehicle crashes by 15% (CMF of 0.85). Injuries are reduced by 25% for occupants
in the equipped vehicles, and by 40% to other parties.
ANCAP
Vehicles are not necessarily tested or designed for maximum safety in all head-on collisions. The Vehicle
Standard (Australian Design Rule 69/00 Full Frontal Impact Occupant Protection) 2006 set the minimum
requirements for how a vehicle in the Australian fleet should perform under frontal impacts. However,
Fitzharris et al. (2006) have demonstrated that this minimum is insufficient to ensure occupants are free of
risk of fatal or serious injuries.
The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) conducts a suite of crash tests, including a headon offset crash test at 64 km/h. Vehicles are given a star rating (out of five) based on their performance in the
crash tests, and the safety features present in the vehicle. To receive the maximum five-star rating, among
other requirements, a vehicle is expected to provide good protection of vehicle occupants such that a headon offset crash at 64 km/h should be survivable for both driver and passenger. In contrast, the worst
performing vehicles receive a
one-star rating, and ANCAP (2015) indicates that occupants are likely to die from injuries sustained in this
type of crash. One-star rated vehicles still meet the minimum requirements set by Vehicle Standard
(Australian Design Rule 69/00), indicating the range of vehicles that may be accepted on Australian roads.

AP-R519-16 Guidance On Median and Centreline Treatments To Reduce Head-On Casualties

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AP-R519-16 Guidance On Median and Centreline Treatments To Reduce Head-On Casualties

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Research Report

Guidance on Median and Centreline

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

This report presents a compendium of local and overseas practice

Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road

In addition to discussing well-proven methods to address head-on

Austroads purpose is to support our member organisations to

Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales

Department of State Growth Tasmania

Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and

Australian Local Government Association

Roads Corporation Victoria

New Zealand Transport Agency.

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

Austroads 2016 | page i

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

Centreline Treatments ........................................................................................................................... 5

Median Treatments .............................................................................................................................. 16

Rigid Median Barriers ........................................................................................................ 27

Semi-rigid Median Barriers ................................................................................................ 29

Wire Rope Median Safety Barriers .................................................................................... 30

2+1 Roads ......................................................................................................................... 33

Moveable Barriers ............................................................................................................. 35

Motorcyclist Concerns with Median Barriers ..................................................................... 36

Median Barrier Terminal Treatments................................................................................. 37

3.7 Flexible Bollards ............................................................................................................................. 37

Pavement Edge Drop-off ................................................................................................... 41

Median Shoulder ............................................................................................................... 42

3.10 Median Glare Treatments............................................................................................................... 44

Other Road Infrastructure Solutions ................................................................................................. 47

Austroads 2016 | page ii

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

4.5 Improved Roadside Forgiveness ................................................................................................... 50

Examples of standard dividing linemarkings .................................................................................. 5

Austroads 2016 | page iii

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

W-beam barrier along wide median .............................................................................................29

Austroads 2016 | page iv

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

Key Contributing Factors

Austroads 2016 | page 1

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

steep downhill gradients leading into curves

Intent of the Report

a visual separation of vehicles (e.g. centreline markings)

Austroads 2016 | page 2

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

Structure of this Report

The report is comprised of six sections, as follows:

Crash Modification and Reduction Factors

Austroads 2016 | page 3

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

Approved Safety Barrier Products

Austroads 2016 | page 4

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

Standard Dividing Linemarkings

Examples of standard dividing linemarkings

(a) Double two-way line

(b) Double one-way barrier line

Austroads 2016 | page 5

Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce Head-on Casualties

(c) Single barrier line

(d) Dividing line