Highways Agency

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 The Highways Agency was commissioned by the Deputy Prime Minister to review standards for the provision of nearside safety fences on major roads immediately after a fatal rail crash on the East Coast Main Line. This was caused by a vehicle leaving the M62 motorway at the Little Heck Bridge near Great Heck, Selby, Yorkshire in the early hours of 28 February 2001. A Working Group ('the Group') was formed and was asked to report to the Highways Agency in the Autumn 2001.

1.2 Speaking in the House of Commons on the 12 March, Keith Hill, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (now the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR)) said 'the Deputy Prime Minister has asked the HSC (Health and Safety Commission) to convene and lead a working group that will look at the circumstances of incidents where vehicles have blocked rail lines and whether there are features in common that might have been preventable. In parallel the Highways Agency will be reviewing its standards for safety barriers'.

1.3 In a subsequent statement to the House on 8 May, Keith Hill said that 'the reports of both groups will be presented to the Deputy Prime Minister in the Autumn' (now to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions).

Terms of Reference

1.4 The Terms of Reference for the Highways Agency Group were set as follows:

"To review the standards for the provision of nearside safety barriers on major roads in the light of recent accidents and make recommendations to the Highways Agency."

1.5 The Group included representatives from highway administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, professional institutions and rail operators. The Highways Agency commissioned TRL Limited as consultants to assist the Group with their study.

1.6 The Group first met on 8 June and subsequently on six other occasions to discuss the results from accident data analyses, international experience, research findings and issues papers. They completed their work in November 2001.

The Approach

1.7 The Group agreed to the following as the scope of their work:

• Identify and consider UK research and studies related to the protection from hazards of errant vehicles leaving the nearside of major roads.
• Consider options for change by assessing quantifiable risks, costs and benefits, and the implications for non trunk roads.
• Identify and consider the practice and standards for the provision of safety barriers in countries where circumstances are similar to the UK.
• Consider the cost and practicality of implementation on new and existing roads.

The Report

1.8 The report closely follows the deliberations of the Group under the four headings of their agreed approach. The Group first examined data from an analysis of accidents where single vehicles had left the carriageway and had 'struck'/entered roadside hazards causing injury to the vehicle occupant(s). The Group went on to examine these accidents in the knowledge of the current safety barrier standard and its application to major roads in the UK. The Group looked briefly at a comparison with accidents for minor roads. The Group considered analyses of the road accident data that showed the probability of accidents occurring, and in particular where a vehicle ends up on a railway line. The Group also discussed how the UK standard compares with international experience, but due to the incomplete nature of this information, it was not possible to draw firm conclusions. No data was available on how widely international standards are applied or how effective these measures are at reducing the number of injuries arising from road accidents. The Group briefly considered the scale of costs arising from any change in the level of provision of safety barriers.

1.9 The Group has reported on each of the above issues in sequence in the chapters that follow. Summary data are contained in each chapter with more detail where necessary provided in the Annexes. A final chapter draws together the discussion, sets out the Group's conclusions and makes recommendations.

Terminology

1.10 The Group firstly had to agree which roads should be included in the review under the term "major roads". They concluded that "major roads" should be defined as motorways, dual and single carriageway trunk roads and dual carriageway principal roads, thus picking up nationally and regionally strategic roads where the speed limit was likely to be 50 mph or more (see Annex 1).

1.11 It was clear that the review was intended to cover the United Kingdom. The road design and other standards in use on major roads in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are jointly developed by the national highway authorities, which in England is the Highways Agency. However, the Group were only able to consider in detail data that covered roads in England and needed to take a view on the application of their findings to major roads in all parts of the UK. This is discussed in Chapter 2.

1.12 The Group also had to agree on a definition of a "safety barrier". They accepted the standard European definition (as given in BS EN 1317 "European Standard for Road Restraint Systems") of a safety barrier as 'a road vehicle restraint system installed alongside, or on the central reserve, of a road'. All safety fences, safety barriers, transitions, crash cushions and barrier terminations are grouped together under the common European definition of 'vehicle restraint systems'. The Group agreed that consideration of the standard for bridge parapets (which are protective fences or walls at the edge of a bridge and provided as part of the construction of a bridge) was outside the scope of the Group.

1.13 Annex 2 contains a glossary of terms used in this report.