What is the apparent FIXATION with the various road safety “Audit” systems or programs, without mentioning specific ones? Be assured, there is simply no “one model fits all”, nor is any such system a panacea. There are simply too many factors that do not fit into a “fixed model”, or that their apparent scoring in such systems gets flattened or simply not appropriately considered. Nor is there always a need for such extensive, absolute formalization of every road safety consideration.
While we appreciate that there is always a need for paperwork, records and caution, this need not always be an academic thesis over a year or longer. This is nowhere more evident in a country like RSA where legitimate first world meets third world. This is not only apparent in infrastructure, however with the extremely wide range of aged and incompatibility of vehicles. Also evident through poor driving standards, enforcement and lack of up to date standard and uniform implementation of laws, standards, regulations and guidelines. We see concrete barriers here, inappropriate steel w-barriers there. Blunt fish-tail ends to barrier and tapered planted ends at others. One type of traffic light here another elsewhere. We see standard road studs here, none at all there, or self-energizing cat-eyes of here. Glow-paint and rumble warning paint and markings here, but not there. Rigid roadside furniture here and breakaway furniture there. We see incredibly distracting and inappropriately positioned billboard, general advertising and even spotlights here and not there. To top this all, we still do not have an accurate centralized, reliable crash database.
Don’t for one second think that we are anti any of these systems and programs, they are crucial and have their place. It is simply that we need improvement on our roads and we need this from all avenues and need this NOW.
We appreciate that there are and is a need for key specialist with key technical knowledge with the necessary legislative requirements, for good reason. As an example, for such things as structural inspections of bridges and culverts, “Bridge and culvert inspection” among others. Without getting into the deep discussions of pro’s, cons, costing issues and the like; Historically, there has always been the process of pre-design considerations, design considerations, during construction analysis, post construction considerations (the emphasis of this commentary) and therefore ample and ongoing opportunity to consider, decide and amend for improvement, no matter how big or small such corrections may be. These have existed and been in practice long prior to the latest road safety systems and programs.
For this discussion, it is moreover the everyday somewhat smaller, and abundant corrections that can be made that we are referring to. There can be absolutely no realistic reason given as to why very basic, grass roots analysis is not being undertaken all over the country at clear risk points locations or sections. It seems that this apparent formalization of such road safety “audit” systems and programs has become an excuse for even rudimentary ongoing considerations of safety. A very recent discussion with key role players at a specific municipality saw discussion on a combination of particular roadside signage being struck, along with obliterated road markings leading up to this same frequent and well-known crash location. The response, from a lengthy and detailed conversation…was one of “…. a formal audit has to be requested and approved in order to be undertaken at this location. This has to be done so that approval can be obtained for funds to make the repairs or any improvements…”, seriously!
While we all appreciate that times, processes, equipment, facilities, laws, regulations, standards; and even people change. Surely there must remain some basic level of reasonable and justifiable combination of logic and competence that can see even a rudimentary level of audit, OK, OK… let’s call it ANALYSIS, for the sake of those that will read this and are fixated on the apparent correct terms now being bandied about, for absolutely every level of consideration (Audit!). A “Road Safety Review” or a “Road Safety Assessment” among other terms.
By any level of reasonable man logic and need for improvement, not every aspect of safety consideration needs to now be so formalized that these new systems and programs must be followed and see two million Rand spent on a sub-atomic level road scan, and eight-man audit team, to the nth degree. This is absolutely not needed for every fix, correction or upgrade; that we continue to see gaping shortcomings in even the most rudimentary maintenance or improvements.
PLEASE, Let this commentary be taken as a proactive, positive and motivational reminder to those many role players at the regions, the municipalities, provincial DOT and even at National level. Let us apply some level of reasonability and logic and let’s make immediate, short term repairs, amendments and even basic upgrades to those MANY smaller road safety issues that can be done, without calling for prolonged, unnecessary full-blown audits (Sorry – analysis or assessment!). replace non-working traffic light bulbs, paint the traffic lines, paint the poles, replace the studs, trim the overgrown, repair the pedestrian pavements and ramps onto them. Replace or repair street lights and poles, even move the poles to better locations. Fix or clean out water drains and culverts. Repair the barriers, correct the curb edge radius or entrance and exit ways if it can be done without major engineering. Reposition intrusive spotlights, seal gaping cracks on roads and repair pushing and rutting. Go and have a meeting with your Metro traffic officers, RTI and even SAPS and ask them where the problems, headaches and snags are, they know. They are on the road all day and are often moaned at by the public.
Be safe, be kind, let us cooperate, be proactive and let us help others
