Local Safety Schemes

Road Safety Audits are being carried out on schemes designed by road safety engineers such as traffic calming, safer routes to school and local safety schemes. 

Road Safety Audit of existing roads is not carried out in the UK. Instead, route safety studies are routinely carried out based on an analysis of historical injury accident records, and the definition of problems arising from those records. Local Safety Schemes have produced significant casualty reductions and excellent cost-benefit returns at single sites and along routes in the UK for the past 35 years. 

On local road schemes there is more flexibility in the way Road Safety Audits are undertaken but there are some fundamental guidelines that should be applied when carrying out Road Safety Audits. 

TRL manages a database of safety schemes on behalf of CSS this is known as MOLASSES. Local authorities supply... 

TMS Consultancy monitoring of local authority safety schemes... 

This is clearly a complex area, and it is perhaps not surprising that very little routine analysis to take account of regression to the mean has been carried out by UK local authorities when monitoring the results of their safety schemes. One method suggested involves the use of matched pair controls, where for each treated location, an identical non-treated location is selected and monitored. There are two problems with this approach. First, it is almost impossible to find a matched pair, in terms of identical layout, traffic flows, traffic mix, accident pattern and frequency. Second, even if it were possible to do this, there could be serious legal implications of leaving locations with identified accident problems untreated. 

At present. Road Safety Audit is mandatory on all new trunk road schemes in the UK, and the majority of highway authorities carry out Road Safety Audits on local road schemes. It may be argued that Road Safety Audits should be mandatory for all road schemes. 

HD 19/15 provides advice and guidance on how to undertake Road Safety Audits on trunk roads (including motorways). On local road schemes there is more flexibility in the way Road Safety Audits are undertaken, and more advice can be found in the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) Road Safety Audit guidelines (IHT, 2008). Some local authorities have their own procedures for carr3ring out Road Safety Audits in their own areas. However, there are six fundamental principles that should always be applied when carrying out Road Safety Audits, regardless of the jurisdiction. 

Biological safety cabinets (BSCs) used in the United States are divided into three classes 1,11, and III. Class II cabinets are further divided into four types A, Bl, B2, and B3." In other countries, other categorization schemes are sometimes used, but usually follow the same general operating conditions. This division is quite unlike the rest of the local ventilation chapter, but since these descriptions are used whenever BSCs are used, it is practical to describe them here. 

However, although these aspects are discussed as separate topics below, in line with the way scientific studies and regulatory issues are normally defined, most consumers still see them as parts of a holistic picture where the good intentions of the people involved in the food supply chain are the most important assurance for all aspects of food quality. In this context, stringent safety measures and sophisticated process control, which are the cornerstone of food quality assurance schemes in conventional supply chains, maybe seen by consumers at best as self-imposed restrictions that prove the sincerity of these good intentions, and at worst as unfair, unnecessary burdens introduced through lobbying from big profit business to support its suppression of small-scale or local producers. 

The principles of the Directive should remove the complexity of clinical trial application, authorization and regulation in existing, new, and future Member States. Thus, substantial amendments to protocol that impact on safety of the subjects or where there is a change in the interpretation of data on the IMP must be notified under the legislation underpinning the Directive. This common process will obviate current disparate national procedures that range from a simple notification scheme to a complex authorization proce-dure. Implementation of the Directive cannot be expected to alter national requirements for provision to examiners of Information to Subjects and Informed Consent forms in local languages. 

Improving technical and economical parameters due to using two-circuit scheme of heat removal, eliminating some safety systems, sterns of accident localization, simplifying the technology of managing the SNF ... 

A beach nourishment scheme was imdertaken at a location where no local quay was available to provide ready all-tide access for work boats or safety boats. The nearest such access was several hours steaming away. Local site communications between shore and floating plant developed initially by using a beach-launched work boat. Tragically, the work boat was overturned during launching in unexceptional conditions and both of the crew drowned. 

By the start of the twenty-first century, most local highway authorities in the UK were undertaking Road Safety Audits on road schemes within their areas of responsibility. 

Another important issue is the way local authorities audit development-led schemes. Some authorities audit all schemes related to new developments on an in-house basis while others insist that an independent Road Safety Audit be carried out for the developer. 

It is very important that a comprehensive site visit is carried out not only of the scheme itself but also of the surrounding area. Particular attention needs to be given to the tie-ins between the proposed scheme and the existing road network. HD 19/03 specifies that the whole Audit Team should visit the site together at all Road Safety Audit stages. Some local authorities relax these requirements by having one auditor visiting the site on smaller schemes. 

Most organisations imdertake a technical audit (or check) of their designs. Sometimes these are formalised through their Quality Assurance process and sometimes they involve less formal procedures. They are used to ensure that the design complies with national or local standards and to minimise mistakes within the design. They may include elements of road safety but do not set out to check the final safety performance of a scheme. The audits may be carried out by a senior member within the design team or by an independent person from another design team. 

Local authorities need to determine how and when this type of scheme should be audited. They also need to determine who carries out the Road Safety Audits and who will make final decisions on whether to adopt recommendations in the Safety Audit Reports. 

As this type of scheme may be new to a local authority, it is very important that the scheme is properly monitored. Stage 4 Road Safety Audits should be carried out after one and three years, and results carefully considered. This monitoring will be very important in the design of future schemes. 

It may be possible to look at schemes in a vdder national context and check the performance of audited schemes against those that have not been audited. This is difficult within a local authority as most authorities either audit schemes of a certain type or they do not. It would be inadvisable not to carry out Road Safety Audits as part of an experiment, due to potential legal liabilities. 

The safety case is regarded as an increasingly important audit tool and of greater potential value than off-the-shelf safety audit schemes. Local managers are expected to undertake regular safety audits and are externally audited every three years. Railtrack s safety case is audited by its own auditors and also by the Railway Inspectorate, who assess Railtrack s procedures for auditing the train operating companies compliance with their safety cases (HSE, 1997 13 ff.). 

---