A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is a formal, independent examination of a road project: at any stage from planning through to post-construction, to identify features that could contribute to crashes or reduce safety for any road user.
RSAs are distinct from a general design review: they are conducted by auditors independent of the design team, and focus solely on safety, not cost, buildability, or design intent.
RSA Stages
| Stage | Timing | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1: Feasibility/planning | Before preliminary design | Route options, land use interfaces, network-level safety |
| Stage 2: Preliminary design | Draft design, before detailed design | Alignment, intersection layout, sight lines |
| Stage 3: Detailed design | Before construction | Signage, line marking, lighting, detailed geometry |
| Stage 4: Pre-opening | Before opening to traffic | As-constructed check against design intent |
| Stage 5: Post-construction (in-service) | After opening, once traffic patterns establish | Crash pattern review, monitoring |
The Audit Team
- Independent of the design team (no involvement in the project's design)
- Typically includes at least one qualified/experienced road safety auditor
- For larger or higher-risk projects, a multi-disciplinary team (e.g. including a road user representative)
Audit Process
- Briefing: audit team receives design documentation and project scope
- Site visit (where applicable): day and night, considering all road user types
- Audit assessment: systematic review against a prompt list (sight distance, signage, delineation, pedestrian/cyclist provision, roadside hazards)
- Audit report: findings documented as safety problems with recommendations, not prescribed solutions
- Response report: the design team responds to each finding: accept, accept with modification, or reject (with justification)
- Corrective action tracking: until findings are closed out
Common Audit Findings
| Category | Example Issue |
|---|---|
| Sight distance | Vegetation, structures, or vertical curvature obscuring approach sight lines |
| Roadside hazards | Unprotected rigid objects (poles, culvert headwalls) too close to the traffic lane |
| Delineation | Inadequate line marking or signage at a complex movement |
| Pedestrian/cyclist safety | Missing refuge, inadequate crossing sight distance |
| Intersection/access | Conflicting movements, inadequate turn treatment for observed speeds |
| Night-time visibility | Insufficient lighting at a conflict point |
Risk Rating
Findings are typically rated by likelihood and severity of a resulting crash, to prioritise the response:
| Risk Level | Example |
|---|---|
| Extreme | High-speed road, frequent conflict, likely severe injury outcome |
| High | Moderate speed/volume, credible crash mechanism |
| Medium | Lower likelihood or lower severity outcome |
| Low | Minor issue, unlikely to contribute meaningfully to crash risk |
Relationship to Design Standards
An RSA finding is not resolved by simply confirming a design meets the relevant Austroads standard: audits specifically look for situations where standard-compliant design can still present real-world safety risk given local context (driver expectation, approach speed, sightline obstructions not evident on plan).
Practical Notes
- The independence of the audit team is non-negotiable: a designer auditing their own or a closely related project undermines the entire process.
- Auditors identify problems, not solutions: the design team retains responsibility for how a finding is addressed, which preserves designer accountability and design flexibility.
- A "not applicable" or "reject" response to a finding should be documented with clear justification: this record protects the project if a crash occurs at a location where a risk was identified but not acted on.