Primerjava kriterijev za izvedbo varnostnih ograj v nekaterih državah Evropske unije

UNIVERZA V MARIBORU FAKULTETA ZA GRADBENIŠTVO, PROMETNO INŽENIRSTVO IN ARHITEKTURO. Leonid Ljubotina. Comparison of the criteria for road safety barrier installation in some countries of the European union Primerjava kriterijev za izvedbo varnostnih ograj v nekaterih državah Evropske unije Master’s thesis.

Leonid Ljubotina. COMPARISON OF THE CRITERIA FOR ROAD SAFETY BARRIER INSTALLATION IN SOME COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION PRIMERJAVA KRITERIJEV ZA IZVEDBO VARNOSTNIH OGRAJ V NEKATERIH DRŽAVAH EVROPSKE UNIJE Master’s thesis Maribor, 2019.

Smetanova ulica 17 2000 Maribor, Slovenija. COMPARISON OF THE CRITERIA FOR ROAD SAFETY BARRIER INSTALLATION IN SOME COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Primerjava kriterijev za izvedbo varnostnih ograj v nekaterih državah Evropske unije Master’s thesis. Student:. Leonid Ljubotina. Study program:. Master’s study program of Traffic Engineering. module:. Safety of road traffic. Mentor:. Red.prof.dr. Tomaž Tollazzi. Lector:. mag. philol. angl. et ital. Tina Malenović. Maribor, September 2019.

ZAHVALA. Zahvaljujem. se. mentorju. red.prof.dr.. Tomažu. Tollazziju za pomoč in vodenje pri pisanju magistrske naloge.. Posebej se zahvaljujem staršem in sorodnikom, ki so mi omogočali študij.. Zahvaljujem se prijateljem in kolegom Vanni in Anđelu za nepozabne trenutke, pomoč in podporo tekom študija. I.

COMPARISON OF THE CRITERIA FOR ROAD SAFETY BARRIER INSTALLATION IN SOME COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Keywords:. traffic, traffic safety, vehicle restraint system, Mediterranean corridor, guidelines. UDK:. 72.051.8(043.2). ABSTRACT In the master thesis we will analyze regulations which define the criterion for vehicle restraint system installment in certain countries of the European Union. We will focus mostly on Slovenia, Italia and Croatia. Even though all of the three states are members of the European Union, have common borders and the “Mediterranean” TEN corridor passes through these countries, it is possible to conclude that the passive safety equipment on the road infrastructure in those states is not harmonized. There are also big differences between the installation conditions of the traffic safety barriers and category selection of the safety barriers. Analyzing regulations regarding traffic safety barrier installation, we will try to define the differences in equipping roads with safety barriers, depending on road category, definition of black spot and the category of the safety barrier.. II.

PRIMERJAVA KRITERIJEV ZA IZVEDBO VARNOSTNIH OGRAJ V NEKATERIH DRŽAVAH EVROPSKE UNIJE. Ključne besede:. promet, varnost prometa, varnostne ograje, Mediteranski koridor, smernice. UDK:. 72.051.8(043.2). POVZETEK V magistrskem delu bomo analizirali predpise, ki določajo pogoje za postavitev varnostnih ograj v nekaterih državah Evropske unije. Osredotočili se bomo predvsem na Slovenijo, Italijo in Hrvaško. Čeprav so vse tri države članice Evropske unije in imajo skupne meje ter skozi vse tri države poteka tudi t. i. sredozemski koridor TEN, pasivna varnostna oprema na cestni infrastrukturi v teh državah ni poenotena. Pri tem so še posebno velike razlike v pogojih za postavitev in kategorijah varnostnih ograj. S pomočjo analiziranja predpisov s tega področja bomo poskusili ugotoviti razlike v opremljanju cest z varnostnimi ograjami v odvisnosti od kategorije ceste, definicije nevarnega mesta in kategorije varnostne ograje. Začeli bomo s predpisi, ki veljajo pri postavljanju varnostnih ograj v Sloveniji, Italiji in na Hrvaškem. Pojasnili bomo, kako se zakonodaja teh treh držav ujema, gotovo pa podobnosti botruje evropska direktiva EN 1317, s katero se lahko zagotavlja poenotenje kriterijev glede postavljanja varnostnih ograj; ta direktiva velja za vse države Evropske unije. Evropska direktiva 1317 je razdeljena na osem poglavij, in sicer: EN 1317 – 1: Terminologija in splošna merila za preskusne metode, 1317 – 2: Razredi uporabnosti, merila sprejemljivosti pri preskusnih trčenjih in preskusne metode za varnostne ograje, 1317 – 3: Razredi uporabnosti,. III.

merila za preskušanje ob naletu in preskusne metode za blažilnike trkov, 1317 – 4: Razredi uporabnosti, merila za preskušanje ob naletu in preskusne metode za zaključnice in prehodne elemente varnostnih ograj, 1317 – 5: Zahteve za proizvode in ugotavljanje skladnosti za sisteme za zadrževanje vozil, 1317 – 6: Varnostne ograje za pešce – Ograje za pešce, 1317 – 7: Razredi uporabnosti, merila za preskušanje ob naletu in preskusne metode za zaključnice in elemente varnostnih ograj, 1317 – 8: Oprema cest za ublažitev udarcev motoristov pri trkih z varnostno ograjo. V nadaljevanju se bomo osredotočili na posamezne predpise, ki so jih uvedle obravnavane države. Tako lahko ugotovimo razliko v številu dokumentov med Italijo, Slovenijo in Hrvaško. Italija je zakonsko regulirala, da se obvezna novelacija predpisov opravi na vsaki dve leti, in se od leta 1992 tega drži. Slovenija ima štiri dokumente, ki urejajo postavitev varnostne ograje, in redno opravlja novelacije predpisov. Na Hrvaškem je postavitev varnostne ograje urejena z enim pravilnikom, ki je bil nazadnje noveliran leta 2005. Trenutno je v pripravi novelacija, ki naj bi vsebovala vseh osem poglavij Evropske direktive EN 1317. Analizirali bomo tudi pomanjkljivosti v predpisih na območju teh treh držav. Za lažjo primerjavo med posameznimi državami in njihovimi predpisi za postavljanje varnostnih ograj smo vzeli t. i. sredozemski koridor TEN. Koridor se nahaja na avtocestnem omrežju vseh treh držav in je opremljen z varnostnimi ograjami. Analizo bomo izvedli na podlagi obravnav napak, ki se prvič pojavili v določeni državi. Za ta način analiziranja smo se odločili, ker se ista napaka nekolikokrat ponovi na posameznem odseku. Vsaka napaka, ki bo prvič opažena, bo imela tudi zabeležene koordinate položaja, fotografijo in kratek opis. Zatem bomo prikazali pozitivne primere na mediteranskem koridorju. Na koncu bomo predstavili še predloge za izboljšanje predpisov v posameznih državah, in sicer glede na sedanje stanje predpisov. V sedanjem sestavu so predpisi posameznih držav precej fragmentarni oz. nepopolni. Predvidevamo, da bo zakonodaja na območju Evropske unije v prihodnosti poenotena, in to prav zaradi povečanja varnosti na cestah in standardiziranja postopka opremljanja cest z varnostnimi ograjami.. IV.

V.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ZAHVALA ........................................................................................................................... I ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................... II POVZETEK ........................................................................................................................ III Table of figures .............................................................................................................. VIII Table of tables ................................................................................................................. IX Table of Graphs ................................................................................................................ X Table of Charts................................................................................................................. XI Used symbols and abbreviations ..................................................................................... XII 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Problem definition ....................................................................................................... 1. 1.2. Thesis ........................................................................................................................... 2. 1.3. Assumptions and limitations ....................................................................................... 2. 1.4. Work structure............................................................................................................. 2. 2 Description of valid legislation in selected countries ....................................................... 3 2.1 Legislation in Slovenia ...................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Legislation in Croatia ........................................................................................................ 9 2.3 Legislation in Italy ........................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Legislation in Germany ................................................................................................... 14 3 Comparison of regulations and analysis of deficiencies ................................................. 20 3.1 Shortcomings of Slovenian regulations .......................................................................... 21 3.2 Shortcomings of Croatian regulations............................................................................ 21 3.3 Shortcomings of Italian regulations ............................................................................... 22 3.4 SAVeRS Project ............................................................................................................... 23 VI.

4 Comparison of the installation of safety barriers on the European TEN-T Mediterranean Corridor .......................................................................................................................... 25 5 Analysis of the traffic safety situation on the "Mediterranean" corridor based on the identified deficiencies ..................................................................................................... 45 6 Proposal of improvement measures ............................................................................. 47 7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 49 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 50. VII.

Table of figures Figure 2.1: Signs for traffic direction in curve [2]....................................................................... 6 Figure 2.2: Sign for frontal obstruction [2]................................................................................. 6 Figure 4.1: Route of the "Mediterranean" TEN corridor ......................................................... 26. VIII.

Table of tables Table 2.1: Minimal containment level of the safety barrier ..................................................... 5 Table 2.2: Safety barrier retention category .............................................................................. 9 Table 2.3: Retention level of the safety barrier based on road and traffic category .............. 12 Table 2.4: Harmonisation of safety barrier terminology ......................................................... 14 Table 2.5: Retention level according to speed limit................................................................. 19 Table 3.1: Rapresentation of legislation regarding safety barrier installation by country ...... 24 Table 4.1: Negative examples of a safety barrier placement, the "Mediterranean" TEN corridor ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 4.2: Rapresentation of positive examples of safety barrier installation on the "Mediterranean" TEN corridor ................................................................................................. 39. IX.

Table of Graphs Graph 2.1: Graph for speeds > 100 kmh[14] ............................................................................ 15 Graph 2.2: Graph for speed between 80 and 100 km/h[14] ................................................... 16 Graph 2.3: Graph for speed between 60 and 70 km/h[14] ..................................................... 16 Graph 3.1: Death toll per million inhabitants .......................................................................... 22. X.

Table of Charts Chart 2.1: Flow chart for appropriate type of safety barrier selection...................................17 Chart 5.1: Distribution of negative examples by country…………………………………………………..…45. XI.

Used symbols and abbreviations Symbols %. - percentage. Abbreviations Km/h - kilometers per hour KNm - kilo newton meter M(m) - meter Cm. - centimeter. 3D. - 3 dimensional. EN. - Euro-Norm. TEN-T - Trans-European Transport Networks TSC. - Tehnična specifikcija (technical specification). DARS - Družba za avtoceste v Republiki Sloveniji ADT. - Average Daily Traffic. SIST. - Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. UNI. - ente nazionale Italiano di unificazione. FGSV - Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen RH. - Republika Hrvatska. SOS. - Save our Souls. CEDR - Conference of European Directors of Roads SAVeRS - Selection of Appropriate Vehicle Restraint Systems. XII.

1 Introduction This master thesis deals with legislation and rule book issues which arise when road safety barriers are installed. Road safety barriers are a passive safety element present in road safety and their correct installation greatly affects the outcome of a car crash. This work will examine the legislation on the territory of three European states: Slovenia, Croatia and Italy. Each of those countries must comply to European norms, and especially with the norm EN 1317 in the field of safety barriers. Legislation and rule books will be examined for each state independently and a comparison of all the documents will be given at the end of the work in order to assess the current legislation state of a given country. Safety barrier installation will be evaluated by analyzing the TEN-T Mediterranean corridor which runs through all three countries which legislation will be analyzed in this master thesis. Finally, the suggestions on legislation improvement will be given.. 1.1 Problem definition Every country has its own regulation regarding safety barrier installation from which different installation criteria are imposed when it comes to safety barrier selection. All three countries are EU members, they have common borders and also, the „Mediterranean“ TEN-T corridor runs through all three countries. It is possible for the safety equipment not to be harmonized. By analyzing the regulation, we will try to define differences in road safety barrier installation.. 1.

1.2 Thesis Legislation regarding safety barrier installation in the chosen European countries will be dealt with in the master thesis. By evaluating the legislation, insight in legislation differences in chosen countries will be given.. 1.3 Assumptions and limitations We will base our research on existing legislation and existing state of the infrastructure. We expect difficulties regarding literature, legislation and rule book availability, which are specific for every country. Also, difficulties are expected when analyzing the current state of road segments equipped with safety barriers, which will be done using computer services offering video recorded condition of the roads. It is possible for the video image to be outdated, which entirely depends on service provider, and because of that, results can be different from the current state at the time of writing this paper.. 1.4 Work structure The work is divided into chapters. In the first chapter, the introduction, the base points of the work are defined, as well as assumptions and limitations. The second chapter describes legal acts and rule books in effect in the chosen countries regarding safety barrier installation. A short description of documents valid in Slovenia, Croatia and Italy are given, as well as short description of projects or rule books regarding safety barriers. In the third chapter, various documents valid in the three countries are contrasted and compared. In the fourth chapter, TEN-T the Mediterranean corridor is posed as an example to show on a case study how various countries approached safety barrier installation. The fifth chapter analyzes and compares various omissions on the Mediterranean corridor per country. In the sixth chapter, a proposal for improvement in various countries are given, and after that comes the conclusion of the paper.. 2.

2 Description of valid legislation in selected countries In the European Union countries, currently, valid regulations are harmonized with the European standard EN 1317. The EN 1317 standard is composed of 8 chapters. EN 1317-1 describes „Terminology and general criteria for test methods“, EN 1317-2 describes „Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety barriers including vehicle parapets“, EN 1317-3 describes „Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for crash cushions“, EN 1317-4 describes „Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for terminals and transitions of safety barriers“, EN 1317-5 describes „Product requirements and evaluation of conformity for vehicle restraint systems“, EN 1317-6 describes „Pedestrian restraint system - Pedestrian parapets“, EN 1317-7 describes „Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for terminals of safety barriers“ and EN 1317-8 describes „Motorcycle road restraint systems which reduce the impact severity of motorcyclist collisions with safety barriers“ [1]. In order for the retention level of the safety barrier to be equal in every country,. regulations regarding safety barrier installation must be based on EN 1317. standard.. 2.1 Legislation in Slovenia In Slovenia, next regulations are currently valid: Pravilnik o prometni signalizaciji in prometni opremi na cestah (Rulebook for traffic signs and traffic equipment) from 2017, Navodilo za načrtovanje in izvedbo ukrepov za izboljšanje varnosti prometa in prepusnosti na avtocestah in hitrih cestah v upravljanju DARS d.d. (Instructions for design and implementation of improvements for traffic safety and traffic flow on highways and freeways under DARS d.d. management) , TSC 02.210 Varnostne ograje, pogoji in način postavitve from (Technical specification for safety barriers, conditions and means of installation) 2010 and Navodilo o tehničnih karakteristikah, pogojih in načinu postavitve varnostnih ograj na cestah v 3.

upravljanju DARS d.d. (Instructions for technical characteristics, conditions and means of installation of safety barriers on roads under DARS d.d. management). [2],[3],[4],[5]. Rulebook for traffic signs and traffic equipment In the Rulebook for traffic signs and traffic equipment, article 69 defines the type of road equipment which consists of: safety barriers, safety fences, traffic calming devices, crash cushion, pedestrian fence, anti-dazzle equipment and road lights. [2] Furthermore, article 70 defines traffic management equipment. As defined by law, traffic management equipment is the equipment necessary to guide and direct the traffic, as any other traffic equipment. Article 70 defines symbols, shapes, colors, meaning, purpose of marking, dimension, ways and conditions of traffic management equipment use. [2] Article 71 defines placement of the traffic management equipment. It is defined that the traffic management equipment, which is placed in the area of roadworks or in the area of a traffic obstruction, should be placed according to the regulation which refers to traffic obstructions. Paragraph 2 of the article 71 defines the allocation of the stakes for winter maintenance, which should be placed on the edge of the road and most likely on the initial part of the safety barrier as well as on its final part. Article 72 refers to safety barriers. Safety barrier purpose is to prevent vehicles from sliding off the road, to prevent vehicles from going into the opposite direction lane and for vehicle containment on the road. Safety barrier structure can be made of steel, concrete, wood or combined structure, in a one sided or two sided design. Even though the structure and materials of a safety barrier are defined, in areas which are protected by regulations regarding preservation of cultural heritage or in the national park area, safety barriers must be shaped and made of materials which are adequate for the protected area. Safety barriers must be allocated near the dangerous obstacles in the proximity of the road [2]: -. In the separation lane dividing opposite direction lanes on highways and freeways. -. On bridging objects. -. When the road is on an embankment higher than 3 meters or on a sustaining wall. -. On road segments with possible side threat (parallel traffic flow with other roads, railway or waterway). 4.

Safety barriers are not necessary on roads where the speed limit is 50 km/h. Paragraph 6 of the article 72 requires safety barriers to comply with the EN 1317-1, 2, 4, 5 and Pravilnika o prometni signalizaciji in prometni opremi na cestah. Minimal containment level of the safety barrier is given in the table 1[2]:. Table 2.1: Minimal containment level of the safety barrier Road category. CONTAINMENT LEVEL Road edge. Traffic infrastructure. Separation lane. Highway, freeway. H2 – H1. H3 – H2. H2. Main and regional roads. H1 – N2. H2 – H1. -. Local roads. N2. N2. -. Other roads. N1. N2. -. Temporary safety barriers which are used in areas of road obstructions on highways and freeways, must correspond to containment level T2, on other roads to containment level T1. Height of the safety barrier must be at least 0,5 m. Safety barriers must be installed at a minimal distance of 0,5 m from the outer edge of the road, highest upper edge of the steel and wood safety barrier can't be lower than 0,75 m, where for concrete barrier that height equals to 0,80 m from the road surface. According to paragraph 10, article 72, additional safety barrier element for motorcyclists is installed on safety barriers outside settlement areas, under condition that the share of motorcyclists in the ADT during the cycling season on a road segment is higher than 2 %.[2] Article 75 defines crash cushions. When a car crash occurs, crash cushions are intended to decrease the severity of the impact on car occupants, the car itself or the fixed obstruction. Crash cushions are devices which are used to protect dangerous road segments where a risk of a car crash with a fixed obstruction exists (pillars or walls of road infrastructure, traffic island). Crash cushions must comply with the EN 1317-3; Performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for crash cushions.. 5.

According to the standard, paragraph 4 of the article 75 it is defined that crash cushions must be tested speed-wise, which is equal to the highest speed on the road segment where the crash cushion is installed. [2]. Regardless of that condition, it is possible to install a crash cushion on existing roads which is tested to a speed 20 km/h lower than the highest speed limit on the segment where the crash cushion is installed, if the correct crash cushion installation regarding paragraph 4 of article 75 would require change of road elements or infrastructure elements. Frontal side of the crash cushion must be equipped with traffic signs 3312 and 3312-2, sign for traffic direction in a curve (figure 1), dimensions 750 x 750 mm if the traffic flows on both sides of the crash cushion, or with the sign 7101, frontal obstruction (figure 2), dimensions 1500 x 500 if the traffic flows only on one side of the crash cushion. Crash cushion set in the tunnel needs to meet the A level of protection against fire, if the traffic flows both ways by the crash cushion, then the crash cushion must be tested for side crash for both driving senses.. Figure 2.1: Signs for traffic direction in curve [2]. Figure 2.2: Sign for frontal obstruction [2] Article 77 defines anti dazzling equipment, and paragraph 2 of that article defines that a safety barrier can be considered as anti-dazzle equipment if its height is at least 1 meter, width 0,20 m and vertical distance between longitudinal elements at height from 0,50 m to 1,00 m is smaller than 5 cm. [2]. 6.

Technical specification for safety barriers, conditions and means of installation. Technical specification about safety barriers defines conditions and means of steel, concrete and wooden safety barrier installation on public and uncategorized roads open for public use. Purpose of safety barrier is to prevent the vehicles from sliding off the road or to prevent vehicles from going in the opposite direction so as to prevent or decrease car occupant injuries, injuries to persons and damage to objects located near the road. It is possible to install a safety barrier on a public road which has a certification complying with Slovenian standard SIST EN 1317-1 and EN 1317-2. In the second chapter of the technical specification, meaning of terms is given, whereas in the third chapter, types of safety barriers are defined. In the fourth chapter, much more attention is given to conditions that should be met for safety barrier installation. It is defined that the safety barrier is to be installed in places where the risk of severe injuries caused by the car crashing into a safety barrier is lower than the risk of injuries provoked by the car driving off into the danger zone separated by the safety barrier. For steel safety barrier installation, following conditions should be met: [5] -. On the road shoulder and on the separation lane of the highway and freeway, a single-sided safety barrier with a spacer element should be installed.. -. When there is not enough space on the separation lane to install a single-sided safety barrier with a spacer element for both directions of the traffic flow, it is possible to install a double-sided safety barrier with a spacer element.. -. On the road shoulder and on the separation lane of other public roads, in general, a single-sided safety barrier without spacer element is installed.. -. When there is not enough space on the separation lane, as defined in the previous paragraph, to install a single-sided safety barrier, then a double-sided safety barrier can be installed[5]. 7.

For concrete safety barrier installation, following conditions are to be met [5]: -. It is necessary to install a concrete safety barrier if it is not possible to meet the needed level of vehicle retention with the steel safety barrier, o On the road with two-way traffic flow, with one driving lane per driving direction up to 7000 ADT o On the road with two-way traffic flow, with two driving lanes per driving direction up to 39.000 ADT. -. On the road located inside water protection area, to prevent spilling of dangerous substances into the ground, it is also necessary to take special care when sealing contact surfaces and it is necessary to ensure a controlled drainage of liquids from road surface into containment pools. Height of the concrete safety barrier [5]: -. At least 80 cm: if there are up to 15% of trucks and buses present in the determined ADT value. -. At least 110 cm: if there are more than 15% of trucks present in the determined ADT value. Wooden safety barriers are mostly installed on roads with low traffic, where regulations about nature preservation (protected nature parks, areas of Nature 2000 and similar) or aesthetics do not permit steel or concrete safety barrier. [5]. Instructions for technical characteristics, conditions and means of installation of safety barriers on roads under DARS d.d. management. Navodilo o tehničnih karakteristikah, pogojih in načinu postavitve varnostnih ograj na cestah v upravljanju DARS d.d. was created for the purpose of unification, update and as an offer of systematical solutions for safety barrier installation on the highway network for the Republic of Slovenia. Guidelines about technical characteristics, conditions and means of installation of safety barriers on roads managed by DARS d.d. are used alongside with TSC 02.210 Safety barriers, conditions and means of installation and Regulation about traffic signalization and 8.

road equipment even though it is necessary to emphasize that until the adoption of new specifications, TSC 02.210 are valid only if they do not contradict this specifications. In that way the specifications rely upon TSC 02.210 when it is necessary to define minimal conditions for safety barrier installation. [3]. 2.2 Legislation in Croatia In the Republic of Croatia, when installing safety barriers, currently, Pravilnik o prometnim znakovima, signalizaciji i opremi na cestama from 2005 (Rulebook for traffic signs, signalization and road equipment) is valid. Article 89 defines the safety barrier: „Safety barrier is a technical safety construction which main purpose is to prevent a car from sliding off the road (planum), or to keep vehicles from sliding off the road surface“. Materials for safety barriers are also defined, and they can be concrete, steel or a combination of both. Safety barriers are installed under following conditions [6]: •. In the separation lane, depending on traffic load. •. On a traffic object. •. When the road is on an embankment higher than 3 m. •. In front of a dangerous obstruction (side danger).. Necessary safety barrier retention category depends on road category, as shown in the table 2[6]: Table 2.2: Safety barrier retention category ROAD CATHEGORY. ROAD EDGE. SEPARATION LANE. OBJECT. Highway and freeway. H2 – H1. H2. H3 – H2. H1. -. H2. N2. -. H1 – H2. State road and fast city road Other roads. 9.

Furthermore, article 90 defines that safety barrier should be equipped with reflective markings or with signposts. On the right side of the road they should be colored red, while on the left side, they should be colored white. On one-way roads, signposts on both sides should be colored red. [6] Even though the Croatian regulation is the oldest one compared to the Slovenian, Italian or German, there is an update underway which will be harmonized with all 8 of the EN 1317 Rulebooks of the given standard. [6]. 2.3 Legislation in Italy Currently valid In Italy: a rulebook Istruzioni tecniche per la progettazione, l'omologazione e l'impiego delle barriere stradali di sicurezza (Technical specification for design, approval and installation of the safety barrier) from 1992, a decree Aggiornamento delle istruzioni tecniche per la progettazione, l'omologazione e l'impiego delle barriere stradali di sicurezza e le prescrizioni tecniche per le prove delle barriere di sicurezza stradale (Update of the technical specification for design, approval and installation of the safety barrier and technical regulations for safety barrier test) from 2004, a decree Disposizioni sull'uso e l'installazione dei dispositivi di ritenuta stradale (Regulations about use and safety barrier installation) from 2011, a decree Istruzioni tecniche per la progettazione, l'omologazione e l'impiego delle barriere stradali di sicurezza (Technical specification for design, approval and installation of the safety barrier) from 2014.. Technical specification for design, approval and installation of the safety barrier from 1992. Rulebook was adopted in 1992. Safety barriers are defined as devices for vehicle retention on the road surface, in a safest possible way. Article 2, paragraph 1, defines that every detailed design regarding public roads outside urban areas, with design speed equal or greater than 70 km/h must contain a study with the engineer explaining his choices regarding safety barrier type, their location and other relating work (grounding, support, water collection devices and similar) in the domain of traffic safety.. 10.

Article 8, paragraph 1, defines as rulebook annex the “Istruzioni tecniche per la progettazione, l’omologazione e l’impiego delle barriere stradali di sicurezza” (Technical specification for design, approval and installation of the safety barrier). Paragraph 2 of article 8 defines the need for a periodical update of the technical specification in compliance with new experience and development of technology. [8] Article 1 regarding destination and place of deployment, safety barriers are divided in: a) Central barriers for traffic separation b) Barriers on road edge, embankment or dug into c) the road d) Barriers for road objects such as bridges, aqueducts, underpass, walls… e) Barriers deployed on spot, for example near road objects, near fixed dangerous obstructions, interchange areas and similar[8] Safety barriers, alongside vehicle containment on the road, should also be able to absorb part of the energy of the moving vehicle to decrease the negative effects of an accident to vehicle occupants. Article 4 defines accident severity index, according to which kinetic energy of the vehicle colliding with the barrier, is calculated: [8] 𝐼𝑠 =. 1 𝑃 ∙ ( ) ∙ (𝑣 ∙ sin 0)2 2 𝑔. Where: Is = severity index (KNm); p = vehicle mass (KN); g = gravity (m/s2); v = speed at the time of accident (m/s); 0 = crash angle Article 6 defines safety barrier classes, which are divided according to the „accident severity index“:[8] -. Class A1: safety barriers which permit an accident severity index between 5 and 15 KNm;. -. Class A2: safety barriers which permit an accident severity index between 15 and 50 KNm;. -. Class A3: safety barriers which permit an accident severity index between 50 and 150 KNm; 11.

-. Class B1: safety barriers which allow an accident severity index between 150 and 300 KNm;. -. Class B2: safety barriers which permit an accident severity index between 300 and 600 KNm;. -. Class B3: safety barriers which permit an accident severity index between 600 and 1000 KNm.. Article 7 describes criteria according to which safety barriers are chosen. Safety barriers are chosen according to geometry and road use as well as traffic characteristics of the chosen road, except for point c) in article 1, where safety barriers of class B should always be implemented. Traffic is classified on the basis of the average traffic flow composition, based on ADT. There are three traffic categories: [8] -. Traffic type I: when the quantity of vehicles heavier than 30 KN does not exceed 5% of overall traffic. -. Traffic type II: when the quantity of vehicles heavier than 30 KN is between 5% and 10% of overall traffic. -. Traffic type III: when the quantity of vehicles heavier than 30 KN is more than 10% of overall traffic. Table 3 shows minimal retention level of the safety barrier depending on the road and traffic category [8] Table 2.3: Retention level of the safety barrier based on road and traffic category Road category. Country roads type B, C.... Freeway and country road type V, VI, A. Main city road. Traffic category. VRS category. I. A1. II. B3. III. B1. I. A2. II. B1. III. B2. I. A2. II. B2. III. B3. 12.

Country roads category I, II, III, IV. I. A3. II. B2. III. B3. Furthermore, from the article 8, in the Rulebook from 1992, conditions for certification of safety barriers are given as well as technical specification for safety barrier testing. Crash test which must reproduce conditions of a hypothetical crash is defined as mandatory. Purpose of the crash test is to define characteristics of safety barrier design with the help of given crash cases, with special attention to 8]: a) Structural adequacy of safety barrier: every type of safety barrier must provide controlled and limited breaks, without separation element, which could represent danger for vehicle occupants or third party persons. b) Complete vehicle containment: safety barrier must completely contain a vehicle, without vehicle turning over, breaking through or passing over the safety barrier. c) Relative safety for vehicle occupants: variation in speed vector change must be defined for the purpose of risk assessment of possible unsustainable injuries for vehicle occupants. Maximal values of acceleration for the time of the accident, measured near vehicle center and in at least another one point, of the duration of 0,05 seconds, are as follow: -. Longitudinal component (X): 20 g. -. Transversal component (Y): 10 g. -. Vertical component (Z): 6 g. -. Total acceleration is calculated by the following formula: √𝑋 2 + 𝑌 2 + 𝑍 2 ∶ 23 𝑔. d) Vehicle redirection trajectory: after the vehicle leaves the place of contact with the safety barrier, a vehicle trajectory must be defined. An angle of vehicle deviation not greater than 1/3 of the angle of collision is considered optimal. Angles greater than 1/3 will be considered separately, case after case, depending on the vehicle used for the test e) Transversal safety barrier movement: a transversal safety barrier movement must be defined to assess if the safety barrier matches its final purpose.. 13.

After the 1992 technical specification, in 1998, it is defined that vehicle damage must be assessed according to EN 1317-1, attachment A [10]. In 1999 new class names are defined where the terminology is harmonized with other states, as defined in table 4: [11]. Table 2.4: Harmonization of safety barrier terminology Class N1. Corresponds to class. A1. Class N2. Corresponds to class. A2. Class H1. Corresponds to class. A3. Class H2. Corresponds to class. B1. Class H3. Corresponds to class. B2. Class H4 a, b. Corresponds to class. B3. In 2005, according article 8 of the decree from 1992, which requires a periodical update of the technical specification, technical specifications are updated and they accept euro norm UNI EN 1317-1, 2, 3, 4. [12]. 2.4 Legislation in Germany In Germany, for safety barrier installation „Richtlinien für passiven Schutz an Strassen durch Fahrzeug-Rückhaltesysteme“are used, i.e. („Guidelines for passive road protection with safety barriers“) issued by FGSV-a in 2009. In those guidelines further cases are specially considered [14]: ➢ Outer edge of roadway ➢ Median and shoulder strip ➢ Median and shoulder strip on bridges ➢ Edges of bridges and support walls ➢ Walls and portals Lane Departure Probability. 14.

Lane departure probability must be considered when selecting appropriate VRS, and the standard highlights the following areas as areas with an increased risk of lane departure [14]: -. Irregularly designed curves. -. Several successive curves with radii smaller than 1.5 times the permitted minimum radius. -. Sections with non-typically large directional changes. -. Incident black spots. -. Risks to third parties. Outer edge of roadway (Verge) The decision of whether to install a barrier or not, depends on the concept of critical distance. A critical distance is determined for each hazard by using speed limit, hazard level and height of slope, as shown in graph 1, graph 2, and graph 3. Distance A (continuous line) is used for hazards of level 3 and 4 while the expanded distance AE (dashed line) is used for hazards of level 1 and 2. [14]. Graph2.1: Graph for speeds > 100 kmh[14]. 15.

Graph 2.2: Graph for speed between 80 and 100 km/h[14]. Graph 2.3: Graph for speed between 60 and 70 km/h[14]. If hazard is within the critical distance, the flowchart shown in Figure 14 is used to determine if a VRS is necessary, depending on the Hazard Level. If a VRS is necessary, the required containment level is also determined. 16.

Chart 2.1: Flow chart for appropriate type of safety barrier selection Risk is categorized into 4 hazard levels [14]: •. •. •. Hazard Level 1: Areas with special risk to third parties: -. Chemical plants. -. Intensively used locations. -. Adjacent rapid transit lines with approved speeds of >160km/h. -. Structures with risk of collapse. Hazard Level 2: Areas with special risk to third parties [14]: -. Adjacent heavily used walkways. -. Adjacent bicycle paths. -. Adjacent rail lines with more than 30 trains every 24 hours. -. Adjacent roads with ATD>500 vehicles every 24 hours. Hazard Level 3: Obstructions with a special risk to vehicle occupants [14]: -. Non-deformable extensive obstacles parallel to direction of travel. -. Non-deformable individual objects 17.

•. Noise barriers. Hazard Level 4: Obstructions with a special risk to vehicle occupants [14]: -. Rising slopes (cut) with a gradient > 1:3. -. Falling slopes (embankment) with height >3m and slope >1:3. -. Intersecting ditches. -. Bodies of water with a depth > 1 m. Median and shoulder strip A VRS is always required in the median and on shoulder strips of dual carriageway roads with a speed limit greater than 50km/h. This can be achieved with either [14]: -. Double sided VRS set up centrally. -. Double sided VRS set up off center. -. Single sided VRS with separate posts set up on both edges. -. Single sided VRS with joint posts set up on both edges. Crash cushions should be added [14]: -. If minimum length of application can’t be met. -. If a distance of 50m to the hazardous area cannot be met in median crossings, and the speed limit cannot be limited to 60km/h. Edges of Bridges and Retaining Walls A VRS is required for roads higher than 2 m, otherwise they are treated as roadsides. Median and shoulder strip on bridges A VRS is required for the edges of bridges and retaining walls with a drop of more than 2m Walls and portals Continuous solid walls are not classified as obstructions if they have no projections or recesses exceeding 0.1m. Crash Cushions Only re-directive crash cushions are allowed. The selection of performance level is based solely on speed limit as shown in Table 5[14]:. 18.

Table 2.5: Retention level according to speed limit Performance level. Speed limit (km/h). 50 R. 50. X. 80 R. 60. X. 70. X. 80. X. 100 R. 90. X. 100. X. >100. 110 R. X. 19.

3 Comparison of regulations and analysis of deficiencies Regulations in European countries must comply with the Euro standard EN 1317-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Since the adoption of the first technical regulations in 1992, Italy has had rigorous criteria for the approval of safety barriers. These criteria are updated every two years on the basis of experience and in order to stay up to date with the development of technology trends. Regular updates to technical regulations remove disputed articles, or further clarify existing articles to simplify the understanding of regulations, to reduce manipulation of regulations and the "gray zone" of regulations. In this way, Italy is very up-to-date on the development of road safety and introduces new regulations regularly. Slovenia also periodically issues regulatory updates and periodically updates laws relating to road safety and safety barriers themselves. The latest document - the guidance on technical specifications issued by DARS d.d. integrate multiple documents in a holistic way and introduce newest innovations in road safety. They are based on the technical specifications of TSC 02.210, and it is important to emphasize that DARS guidelines, as a newer document, exclude any articles of technical specifications that contradict the guidelines. Croatia lags behind other European countries in terms of regulations. The criteria for the installation of safety barriers are defined in the "Rulebook on Road Signs and Road Equipment" and in the general technical conditions for road works. As Croatia has been a member of the European Union since 2013, it is obliged to harmonize its regulations with EU regulations. Guidelines on safety barriers are currently under development which will contain all 8 amendments to Euro 1317.. 20.

3.1 Shortcomings of Slovenian regulations In the last document issued by DARS d.d. most controversial issues were addressed by better defining safety barrier installation and the conditions for the procedure were rigorously defined. The lack of Slovenian regulations can be seen in the overlapping of several documents, where guidelines issued by DARS d.d. exclude only some individual articles in previous documents, and not the entire document. Such exclusion may lead to design errors in the first period of adaptation to the new guidelines.. 3.2 Shortcomings of Croatian regulations Regulations on the installation of safety barriers in the Republic of Croatia are unfortunately the most liberal of three and are insufficiently defined. The criteria for the installation of protective fences in the Republic of Croatia are defined by only two articles in the Rulebook on Road Signs, Signaling and Road Equipment and General Technical Conditions for Road Works. The chapter "Standards and regulations" in the general technical conditions lists the Euro standards 1317-1, 2, 3. Regular updating of legislation and regulations is required in order to develop safety devices and to constantly develop road safety. The Croatian documents defining the conditions for the installation of safety barriers most often lack a graphical representation of the correct solutions and variants. None of the above Croatian regulations contains graphic representations of safety barriers with proper installation methods, but only a written description. A major problem is the lack of quantitative indicators of the characteristics of safety barriers. The characteristics of the safety barriers are defined qualitatively, in the words as in the following example: "In order to gradually stop the vehicle when striking a safety barrier, the transverse displacement of the safety barrier must be as large as possible, depending on the free space between the safety barrier and the danger zone." Safety barrier installation is subject to misinterpretation by the engineer, and is also subject to malpractice and exploitation of ambiguity of regulations.. 21.

A slow reaction in updating regulations and aligning them with the rest of the European Union leads to a lower level of road safety on Croatian roads compared to the rest of the European Union (Chart 1), which consequently contributes to the greater number of seriously injured or fatalities on Croatian roads, which is partly the reason for Croatia's lag in statistics for other EU Member States. [15]. Graph 3.1: Death toll per million inhabitants. 3.3 Shortcomings of Italian regulations Since 1992, Italy has been actively working to update the regulations on safety barriers. Updates are issued almost regularly every two years, which can monitor the development of technologies in the market and the application of experience from previous regulations. The Italian regulations are well defined quantitatively and qualitatively and the European normative (EN 1317) and standards are being up-to-date implemented. The constant updating of regulations through decrees also includes the lack of regulations where amendments are accumulated from one supplement to another, and any new update of the regulations does not invalidate a previously issued document but only certain articles of a previous document or articles of a document issued in 1992.. Therefore, the competent engineer must have a good knowledge of the basic technical instructions for the design, type-approval and installation of safety barriers of 1992 and carefully consider any subsequent amendments.. 22.

Such a large amount of documents can cause unintentional design errors, which means a lower level of safety than that prescribed for a particular section of road. Also, in Italian regulations there are no graphical representations of variants of safety barriers and their proper placement.. 3.4 SAVeRS Project The CEDR (Conference of European Directors of Roads) funded a project aimed at analyzing the current state of guidelines, laws and other acts relating to the erection of safety barriers on public roads. That's how the SAVeRS (Selection of Appropriate Vehicle Restraint Systems) project was created. The project was funded by several CEDR Member States, within the CEDR 2012 transnational road safety research program. The project consists of two phases, i.e. two work packages. The first work package aimed at analyzing the existing methodologies of national organizations responsible for road infrastructure and the criteria for identifying the need to install a safety barrier and to decide on the optimal level of containment. The results of the first work package were used in the second work package, which aimed to compare accident data related to the safety barriers and their placement against the parameters identified as key in the first work package. Some of the key identified parameters that assist in the selection of safety barriers are: risk to occupants of the vehicle, actual speed, road geometry, distance between the edge of the road and danger, risk to third parties and other traffic, presence of embankments and burial (and their slope and height), presence of railway, presence of rivers or streams, average annual daily traffic (AADT), presence of solid (not deformable) structures. [16]. Regulations from 35 countries were analyzed, most of them located on the European continent, with several countries outside Europe. Table 8 shows the countries which regulations were analyzed when installing safety barriers, and whether those countries have their own regulations or are based on regulations from other countries. [16]. 23.

Table 3.1: Representation of legislation regarding safety barrier installation by country. State. Based on regulations of:. State. Austria. Finland. Belgium. France. Based of regulations of:. Brazil. USA. Germany. Bulgaria. Germany. Greece. Germany. Canada. USA. Iceland. Norway. Croatia. Ireland. Cyprus. Israel. Czech Republic. Italy. Denmark. Latvia. Germany Germany. Estonia. Germany. Lithuania. Luxemburg. Germany. Slovenia. mexico. USA. Spain. Nepal. Sweden. Netherlands. Switzerland. Norway. Turkey. Philippines. USA. United Kingdom. Poland. Germany. USA. Portugal. Germany. USA. From the table we can conclude that most countries use their own regulations, while those countries that base their regulations on the regulations of other countries mainly use German law (8 cases), US law (5 cases), and one case where the Norwegian legislation is used. [16]. 24.

4 Comparison of the installation of safety barriers on the European TEN-T Mediterranean Corridor In order to more easily analyze the approach of individual countries to road safety, we have selected the TEN-T Mediterranean Corridor, the route which runs through several European countries, with a length of 3000 km. [17]. TEN-T The Mediterranean corridor is a multimodal purpose corridor. On its route there is a road, a railway and a seaport. This corridor is located between Spain and Ukraine and serves as a multimodal link between the western Mediterranean ports and the center of the European Union.. 25.

Figure 4.1: Route of the "Mediterranean" TEN corridor. The countries of interest for this work are: Slovenia, Croatia and Italy. The Mediterranean corridor lies on the road network in all three countries, which greatly increases the level of road safety on the corridor. Security analysis will be closely linked to the safety barriers and their proper installation. The route of the Mediterranean corridor will be inspected and the defects on the protective fence will be analyzed, such as:. - Choosing the right type of safety barrier - Proper transition between individual elements of the safety barrier - Replacement of damaged elements - Proper installation of safety barrier - Selecting the correct locations for the protection fence - Choosing the right safety barrier locking elements. 26.

In Croatia, the Mediterranean Corridor covers the A1, A3, A4 and A6 motorway roads. The following chapter shows the positive and negative examples of erecting safety barriers along the route of the Mediterranean corridor.. Description of negative and positive examples. The following two tables show descriptions of negative and positive examples on the "Mediterranean" TEN corridor, for example the countries of Croatia, Slovenia and Italy. Protective fences have been processed regarding the interconnection of the same types of protective fences (steel - steel, concrete - concrete), the interconnection of different types of protective fences (steel - concrete), their departure from other road infrastructure (to meet working width conditions), the continuity of the protective fence (minding the existence of short unprotected gaps between two fences), the surrounding area of the road where no protective fence is installed (to indicate off-road hazards), fence joints at highway exits (need to install shock absorbers), anchoring the ends of fences (to indicate the problem of recessed ends of the fence that can act as a ramp for lifting the vehicle during an accident), maintenance of the safety barrier and more.. Tables 6 and 7 do not show all the individual problems in a section, but only the first encounter with a particular problem on the "Mediterranean" corridor section. Also, the accuracy of the data or images depends on the update of the shot on Google Street View. All the photos in the table correspond to the status of the Google Street View snapshot on 6/24/2019.. 27.

Table 4.1: Negative examples of a safety barrier placement, the "Mediterranean" TEN corridor STATE. COORDINATES. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXAMPLE. IMAGE. Croatia At Bosiljevo junction, public lighting is installed within the working width of the fence and in the event 45.4105016, 15.2760575. of a collision of the vehicle with the safety barrie, the public lighting pole will not allow the proper operation of the safety barrier and the transfer of energy from the vehicle to the safety barrier. The open end of the fence that serves as a gateway to. 45.4085457, 15.2616594. the SOS phone is left in the immediate vicinity of the SOS phone, which can pose a danger to its users as well as to motorists on the freeway The end of the safety barrier is not properly. 45.4029816,. anchored to the base, but. 15.241563. even if the anchoring was properly carried out, a safer option would be to install a crash cushion.. 28.

45.4020402, 15.2387178. Again, the gateway to the SOS phone is too close to the phone itself, which can be a security issue. A short distance between 45.400877,. the two ends of a safety. 15.2330802. barrier that could be interconnected to increase security. A low concrete safety 45.3742952,. barrier with access to the. 15.1210411. SOS phone can be a danger to phone users. The passage in the safety barrier is not made with 45.3741402, 15.1207213. the same level of restraint as the rest of the safety barrier, and breakdown of the safety barrier may occur here.. 45.3701711, 15.0954698. Continuity of safety barrier interrupted due to electrical cabinets. 29.

Poorly maintained safety 45.3700939, 15.0954088. barrier. Due to poor condition, the retention level may be lower than prescribed A very dangerous situation. The ends of the safety barriers are not connected, there is no crash cushion element at the end, in this version of the safety. 45.3636091,. barrier execution the. 15.0832429. vehicle can “fly over” the safety barrier, the collision bellows does not guarantee any level of restraint and the vehicle can collide with a nondeformable signpost Improper connection of two types of fence. A very dangerous situation, in the. 45.3631203, 15.0823652. current version, a concrete safety barrier can serve as a ramp for the vehicle, thus causing the vehicle to fall through the center of the overpass. 30.

Protective fence installed in the immediate vicinity of the overpass carrier pillar, 45.358789,. within the working width of. 15.0734349. the fence, which prevents the proper operation of the protective fence in an accident.. Safety barriers not 45.3745756,. connected, restraint level. 15.0193984. may be lower than recommended. Passage between safety 45.3745949, 15.0191525. barriers enclosed by plastic elements that do not provide a level of containment Before entering the tunnel, a double row of concrete safety barrier is installed. The inner row of the. 45.374765,. concrete fence can serve as. 15.0154466. a vehicle ramp, leading to situation where the vehicles could collide with the concrete wall of the tunnel tube. 31.

45.373609, 15.0035721. Unbound safety barriers, restraint level may be lower than recommended. Unconnected ends of concrete safety barriers, 45.3740792, 14.9837157. with recessed ends set in the direction of travel, in this situation that element may act as a lifting ramp for vehicles. The combination of safety 45.3912743,. barriers has not been. 14.8311105. carried out according to regulations. Poorly maintained elements of the concrete safety barrier, thus reducing their level of containment. The elements 45.3167421,. are in front of the. 14.7144704. overpass, and in the event of an accident, puncturing these elements with the vehicle could cause the vehicle to fly off the overpass. 32.

Short distance between the end and the beginning of 45.3161341,. the safety barrier, it is. 14.69383. advisable to connect the guarded concrete safety barrier into one unit. In the Tuhobić tunnel, no 45.3231874,. collision absorb elements. 14.6410501. were installed at the emergency stop sections. At the beginning of the 45.3620905, 14.563526. viaduct there is a short distance between the concrete and the steel guard rail. Slovenia In the straight line section, the start of the safety 45.9075467,. barrier is indentured,. 15.3593847. which can lead to the "launch" of the car above the safety barrier At the highway exit, near Dobruška Vas, no safety. 45.885998,. barrier or collision element. 15.3089217. has been installed, and therefore there is a danger of a vehicle being hit by a. 33.

signpost, puncturing a sign and crashing the vehicle. No shock absorber was installed at the exit for 45.854788, 15.2505477. Kronovo settlement. The current performance of the safety barrier endings can lead to the "launch" of the car above the safety barrier A traffic sign indicating the vicinity of the landing is not protected by a safety. 45.8447685,. barrier; in the event of a. 15.2275543. collision it can cause extensive damage to the vehicle and injury to the driver. 45.8423491, 15.2188416. Export to the resort is not protected by a shock absorber. The passage between the 45.9241419, 14.9363171. two fences does not have the same level of restraint as the rest of the safety barrier. 34.

45.9582352, 14.7442665. 45.9702087, 14.6648707. Small gap between concrete and steel guard rail exists. The vehicles are not adequately protected from being hit by a noise barrier. The passage between the 45.9744833,. two safety barriers is not. 14.3072172. secured by a safety barrier of the same restraint level. 45.8638513, 14.2719766. The viaduct support column is not protected by a safety barrier. Italy. 45.509824,. The pillar of the traffic. 11.6077059. signal portal is positioned within the working width. 35.

45.5112459, 11.6028561. Access to agricultural land is left on the highway safety barrier, compromising road safety. 45.5124176, 11.5989323. 45.5133476, 11.5957352. The ends of the steel safety barrier are not connected. The final element of the safety barrier is not designed as a shock absorber. 45.5180502,. The ends of the steel and. 11.5266794. concrete safety barrier are not connected. 45.5180335, 11.5250886. the top element of the safety barrier is not designed as a shock absorber. 36.

45.5157639,. There is a ditch along the. 11.4947338. side of the road. Protective fence required. 45.5149689, 11.49246. A short section on which no safety barrier was installed. Access to agricultural land 45.4899888,. is left on the highway. 11.441416. safety barrier, thereby endangering road traffic safety. 45.4770243, 11.426579. Left door for telephone booth and short distance of unconnected steel guard rail. 45.4737274,. The ends of the steel and. 11.4217282. concrete safety barrier are not connected. 37.

45.460221, 11.4028769. 45.4535719, 11.390977. 45.4371451, 11.3576212. Safety barrier elements not connected. Left pedestrian passage directly on the highway. The connection of the fences on export was not installed with a shock absorber. 45.4247445,. The edges of the steel. 11.3288227. safety barrier are not connected. 38.

Table 4.2: Representation of positive examples of safety barrier installation on the "Mediterranean" TEN corridor STATE. COORDINATES. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXAMPLE. IMAGE. Croatia. 45.4086668,. A shock absorber is fitted. 15.2644359. at the junction of the two steel guard rails. 45.4105637, 15.2757436. 45.4100058, 15.2743115. Proper connection of two different types of safety barriers. Public lighting pole protected by a New Jersey concrete barrier. 45.4059096,. Higher level restraint. 15.2509594. barrier on the bridge. 39.

On the passage between 45.4035897, 15.2430523. the lanes, a well-connected safety barrier of the same restraint level as on the rest of the section. Intervention passage at the entrance / exit of the 45.3846476,. tunnel, preventing the. 15.1688191. transition from one driving direction to another by a ramp. 45.373641, 15.0053176. 45.4230594, 15.2989451. 45.4528211, 15.3744262. Proper fence type crossing example: concrete fence steel fence - steel fence. Loop control cabinet protected by additional safety barrier. Proper transition between two types of steel guard rail. 40.

45.4528211, 15.3744262. 45.5137281, 15.5463763. Higher level of retention of safety barrier in front of overpass carrier. Shock absorber on exit ramp where concrete safety barrier is present.. Slovenia. 45.8563962, 15.6843175. 45.8563962, 15.6843175. Proper connection of two types of safety barriers (steel - concrete). Higher level restraint fence in front of carrier pillars of bridges and overpasses. Passage between lanes of 45.8520128, 15.6872682. highway closed by a safety barrier of the same level of containment as the rest of the road. 41.

45.892922, 15.5872626. Higher level of retention of safety barrier on bridges and viaducts. 45.9133094,. Passage for emergency. 15.4644135. vehicles. 45.9133592, 15.464058. 45.8585516, 15.2553775. Edge of emergency vehicles access passage protected by a shock absorber. Proper transition between two types of steel safety barriers. 45.9048154,. Passage for emergency. 14.9821245. vehicles in front of tunnels. 42.

Italy More correct execution of the safety barrier crossing, 45.8482486,. in the direction of travel. 13.1582013. the first safety barrier angled obliquely into the base. Passage between two lanes 45.8397401, 13.1321922. of highway closed by a safety barrier of the same level of restraint as the rest of the highway. 45.8181551, 13.0233556. Proper transition between two types of guard rail (steel - concrete). At the exit from the 45.8178989, 13.02034. highway, where two concrete safety barriers are connected, a shock absorber is installed. 45.7986139, 12.8499742. Higher level of retention of safety barrier on bridges and viaducts. 43.

45.76805,. Special station for official. 12.753896. vehicles. 45.6795926,. Firmly anchored steel. 12.548663. guard rail at passage. 45.518088,. Proper connection of two. 11.5242366. types of fences. 44.

5 Analysis of the traffic safety situation on the "Mediterranean". corridor. based. on. the. identified. deficiencies In total, 47 identified deficiencies in the "Mediterranean" corridor were noted. Only flaws that are recorded are the ones which appear for the first time in a particular country, so the total number of gaps is higher in reality. Only the diversity of the type of omission by country is compared (Chart 2). As the footage is not updated regularly, it is possible that certain flaws have been sanitized.. Chart 5.1: Distribution of negative examples by country. Based on the analysis of the footage of the "Mediterranean" corridor, it is possible to determine that at present Croatia is lagging behind its legislation with other EU countries, primarily Slovenia and Italy. Although it borders with both countries, the most omissions of the "Mediterranean" corridor are located within the borders of the Republic of Croatia and the most dangerous omissions are also noted there. 45.

Most dangerous omissions are omissions that can cause serious injury or death. This is a consequence of the unfinished laws regulating road safety equipment but also the lack of a road safety audit in that section. As the motorway is part of the TEN-T corridor network, it is subject to mandatory road safety audits, in accordance with the European Directive. Another problematic section is located in Italy. Although Italy requires a very high level of retaining of the highway fence, the failures are most often due to the type of highway model, which is popular in Italy. As the land on which the highway is built remains in the hands of private, individual subjects even after the highway is built, often times this leads to the presence of passageways to private agricultural land. With these passages, it is possible to access the highway directly from private land without the use of access restriction ramps, which significantly reduces the level of highway safety. Although the level of road safety is very high in Slovenia, there are several flaws which could result in serious physical injuries and even the death of drivers and passengers in a car. Failures were made when installing a safety barrier near road structures (viaduct, noise barrier). In the case of a viaduct, the loadbearing pillar is not protected against vehicle collisions, and in the case of a noise barrier, the concrete barrier is too short and can serve as a lifting ramp for vehicles.. 46.

6 Proposal of improvement measures Slovenia, Croatia and Italy have plenty of room for improvement in their legislation regarding safety barriers. Road safety is a priority for EU member countries, which is developed on two fundamental ideologies, carriers of safety development. First one is the Swedish „Vision 0“ which aims at 0 death and heavy injured on roads by 2050 in the EU. Second one is the Norwegian „Sustainable Safety“ which is a proactive ideology which goal is to decrease the number of deaths and heavy injuries on roads, with a constant development of road safety and implementation of new solutions. Both visions rely on analyzing traffic as a whole, and road element change with the purpose of increased traffic safety. Safety barriers are also traffic elements subject to changes for better safety for road users.. Measures in Slovenia. For a better understanding of the legislation, for Slovenia, it is advised to issue a document which will encompass all of the rulebooks issued by various institutions. The rulebook for traffic signalization and road equipment was issued by the Ministry, technical specification TSC: 02.210 was issued by the Directorate for roads of the Republic of Slovenia and the guidelines were issued by DARS d.d. The unification could be made by one of the abovementioned institutions in a given period of time. It is also advised to implement the Euro standard 1317 with its 6, 7 and 8 amendments for safety barrier installation.. 47.

Measures in Croatia. Republic of Croatia lags greatly behind other European countries. For the Republic of Croatia it is advised to implement the Euro standard 1317 with its 8 amendments, as soon as possible, to increase the traffic safety level on Croatian roads. Furthermore, it is necessary to issue a new rulebook for safety barrier installation which will cover the newest know-how in safety barrier installation. This rulebook should have precisely defined rules, in a qualitative and quantitative way, in order to prevent or decrease misinterpretation. It is advised to include graphic description of the right variants of safety barriers (scale) and with measurement for a better explanation.. Measures in Italy. In the case of Italy, the biggest problem is the publication of updates and annexes, one document after another, which creates a confusing amount of paperwork. Every newly published document revokes only certain articles of the previously released document, or the document issued in 1992. It is advised to issue a unique document which would encompass all of the documents issued in the last 27 years, when the first document about safety barrier installation was issued. It is advised to add graphical representation of the correct variants, scale drawing and measurements.. 48.

7 CONCLUSION Assessing the regulation documents regarding safety barriers in countries of the European Union, we got an insight into the traffic safety level in those countries. Analyzing separated cases it could be perceived that the overall traffic safety is in a bad state. That is not completely correct. Highways are, function-wise, roads with the highest traffic safety level. Highway elements are designed to offer maximum safety for its users, given that every user follows traffic rules. Analyzed states can be contrasted and compared but not without difficulties because they do not have the same legal background, which is the reason for big variations when dealing with safety barrier installation. Differences in traffic safety are caused by economic reasons, i.e. limited financial resources during highway construction, but also by differences in legal framework. All of the analyzed countries are continuously working on improvement of legal acts and rulebooks regarding safety barrier installation, and because of that it is expected for the traffic safety level on highway to increase over time.. 49.

REFERENCES [1]. TrafFix Devices (no date). EN1317 European Road Restraint Systems. Downloaded April 20, 2019 from https://www.traffixdevices.com/standards/en1317. [2]. Direkcija Republike Slovenije za infrastrukturo. (may 2016). Pravilnik o prometni signalizaciji in prometni opremi na cestah Downloaded April 22, 2019 from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=PRAV11505. [3]. DARS d.d. (august 2017). Navodilo za načrtovanje in izvedbo ukrepov za izboljšanje varnosti prometa in prepusnosti na avtocestah in hitrih cestah v upravljanju DARS d.d. Downloaded May 10, 2019 from https://www.dars.si/Content/doc/Navodila%20in%20smernice%20izvajalcem/Navodi lo%20o%20tehni%C4%8Dnih%20karakteristikah,%20pogojih%20in%20na%C4%8Dinu %20postavitve%20varnostnih%20ograj.pdf. [4]. DARS d.d. (september 2017). Navodilo o tehničkih karakteristikah, pogojih in načinu postavitve varnostnih ograj na cestah v upravljanju DARS d.d. Downloaded May 10, 2019 from https://www.dars.si/Content/doc/Navodila%20in%20smernice%20izvajalcem/Navodi lo%20o%20tehni%C4%8Dnih%20karakteristikah,%20pogojih%20in%20na%C4%8Dinu %20postavitve%20varnostnih%20ograj%20-%2010.10.2018.pdf. [5]. Republika Slovenija, Ministrstvo za promet. (February 2012). TSC 02.210 : 2010 Varnostne ograje pogoji in način postavitve Downloaded May 3, 2019 from http://www.di.gov.si/fileadmin/di.gov.si/pageuploads/Tehnicne_specifikacije_z_cest e/TSC_02_210_2010_Varnostne_ograje_Pogoji_in_nacin_postavitve.pdf. [6]. Republika Hrvatska, Ministarstvo mora, turizma, prometa i razvitka. (March 2005). Pravilnik o prometnim znakovima, signalizaciji i opremi na cestama Downloaded May 7, 2019 from https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/full/2005_03_33_662.html 50.

[7]. Hrvatske ceste – Hrvatske autoceste. (December 2001). Opći tehnički uvjeti za radove na cestama, knjiga VI – oprema ceste Downloaded May 7, 2019 from https://hrvatske-ceste.hr/hr/pages/information_and_documents/documents/44opci-tehnicki-uvjeti-za-radove-na-cestama. [8]. Il ministero dei lavori pubblici. (February 1992). D.M. 18 febbraio 1992 - Istruzioni tecniche sulla progettazione, omologazione ed impiego delle barriere di sicurezza stradale. Downloaded May 12, 2019 from http://www.trafficlab.eu/normativa/cat_view/14-normativa/17-normativanazionale/25-strade/33-barriere-stradali.html?format=html&start=10. [9]. Il ministero dei lavori pubblici. (October 1996). D.M. 15 ottobre 1996 - Aggiornamento del decreto ministeriale 18 febbraio 1992 Downloaded May 12, 2019 from http://www.trafficlab.eu/normativa/cat_view/14-normativa/17-normativanazionale/25-strade/33-barriere-stradali.html?format=html&start=10. [10]. Il ministero dei lavori pubblici. (June 1998). D.M. 3. giugno 1998 - Aggiornamento del decreto ministeriale 18 febbraio 1992 Downloaded May 12, 2019 from http://www.trafficlab.eu/normativa/cat_view/14-normativa/17-normativanazionale/25-strade/33-barriere-stradali.html?format=html&start=10. [11]. Il ministero dei lavori pubblici. (June 1999). D.M. 11. giugno 1999 - Aggiornamento del decreto ministeriale 18 febbraio 1992 Downloaded May 12, 2019 from http://www.trafficlab.eu/normativa/cat_view/14-normativa/17-normativanazionale/25-strade/33-barriere-stradali.html?format=html&start=10. [12]. Il ministero dei lavori pubblici. (June 2005). Aggiornamento al 1. giugno 2005 - Procedure di omologazione per barriere di sicurezza stradali attivate presso l’ispettorato generale per la circolazione e la sicurezza stradale ai sensi del D.M. 3.06.98 e successivo aggiornamento. Downloaded May 12, 2019 from 51.

http://www.trafficlab.eu/normativa/cat_view/14-normativa/17-normativanazionale/25-strade/33-barriere-stradali.html?format=html&start=10 [13]. Il ministero dei lavori pubblici. (June 2011). D.M. 28 giugno 2011 - DECRETO 28 giugno 2011 Disposizioni sull'uso e l'installazione dei dispositivi di ritenuta stradale Downloaded May 12, 2019 from http://www.trafficlab.eu/normativa/cat_view/14-normativa/17-normativanazionale/25-strade/33-barriere-stradali.html?format=html&start=10. [14]. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtenwicklung, (March 2009) Richtlinien für passiven Schutz an Straꞵen durch Fahrzeug-Rückhaltesysteme. [15]. European Commission – Fact Sheet (March 2016) 2015 road safety statistics: What is behind the figures? Downloaded June 15, 2019 from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-864_en.htm. [16]. Conference of European Directors of Roads. (March 2108) SAVeRS Selection of Appropriate Vehicle Restraint Systems Final Workshop Proceedings Downloaded June 2, 2019 from https://www.cedr.eu/wpfb-file/savers_workshop_proceedings_full-pdf/. [17]. European commission. (no date) TEN-T Mediteranski koridor Accessed May 10, 2019 at https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/mediterranean_en. 52.