Trainers Road Safety Manual

Chapter 4

DESIGNING FOR
ROAD SAFETY : JUNCTIONS
Trainers Road Safety Manual

4. DESIGNING FOR
ROAD SAFETY: JUNCTIONS

Overview
This topic is dealt in Chapter 5 of the “Manual for Safety in Road Design – A Guide for Highway
Engineers”. This topic discusses how Accident Prevention can be achieved through better designing
of junctions.
• Priority junctions are the most common form of intersection. Control is by a 'Give Way' or
'Stop' sign on the minor road with no restriction on the major road.
• A roundabout is a one-way circulatory system around a central island, entry to which is controlled
by 'Give-Way' markings and signs. Priority is given to traffic already on the roundabout.
• Signals can operate under fixed time plans, in response to traffic demands (vehicle actuated) or
under manual control and can be linked together to provide control of a network as a whole.
• Grade separated is a form of intersection where conflicting movements are segregated in space.
In order to appreciate the topic it is subdivided into following headings:
• Junction Design Basic Principles
• Selection of Junction Type
• Factors Affecting Safety at Various Junction Types
• Elements to Improve Road Safety
• Provisions for Vulnerable Road Users

4.1
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.1 Junction Design Basic Principles

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

Safety Issues
• An intersection is defined as the general area where two or more roads join or cross,
including the roadway and roadside facilities for traffic movements within the area.
Intersections are important part of road network because, to a great extent, the efficiency,
safety, speed, cost of operation, and capacity of the road network depend upon their
design.
• The number of accidents at intersection account for almost 30-40% of all reported road
accidents on National Highways in India.
• Two streams of traffic can interact in three basic ways, i.e. merge, diverge, or cross. There
is also a more complex manoeuver called the weave, which in effect is merge followed by
a diverging action.
• In both the crossing and merging manoeuvres it is necessary for drivers in one stream to
find gaps of suitable size in the other stream for their vehicles to enter. Two problems
associated with this are:
− Driver misjudges either the length or location of a gap and an accident results or
− Not enough gaps of sufficient size are available in one, or both, traffic streams for all
vehicles wishing to merge or cross and congestion occurs.
• Reasons for misjudging gaps are:
− Acute Crossing Angle
− Multiple Manoeuvres
− Lack of Spatial Guidance
− High Approach Speeds

Safer Practices
• To improve traffic capacity and safety at
Figure 4.1.1: Effect of Intersection Angle
junction it may be possible to remove some of on Accidents
the conflicting traffic streams from the area.
• By widening or flaring the approaches to a junction, it is possible to increase the capacity
but this may be to the detriment of safety.
• Ensure road markings provide a clear indication of what is expected of the driver and
other users at the intersections.
• Install large advance directional signs for major urban and rural junctions especially at
high speed locations.
• Limit the number of intersections and make sure that the roads intersect with the road one
above or below the hierarchy of the road.
• Some of the measures to improve drivers ability to judge are:
− Making conflicting streams to cross at more obtuse angles,
− Replacing complex manoeuvres with successive simple ones, e.g. replacing a
complex multi-way junction with a roundabout.
− Inserting a channelising island to redirect or funnel some or all movements.
− Ensure signages are kept clear of sight line.
− Ensure that all pedestrian crossing points have smooth kerb ramps.

4.2
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

As per IRC SP: 41, Guidelines for the Design of At-grade Intersections in Rural and Urban Areas; for
design of the intersections the primary considerations are safety, smooth and efficient flow of traffic.
To achieve this, the following basic principles must be followed:
Uniformity and Simplicity:
• Intersections must be designed and operated for simplicity and uniformity. The design must
consider the capabilities and limitations of drivers, pedestrians and vehicles using intersection.
• The intersections on the particular routes should have uniform design standards so that drivers
anticipate what to expect at intersection.
• The major design elements in which uniformity is required are design speed, intersection curves,
vehicles turning paths, super-elevation, level shoulder width, speed change lane lengths,
channelisation, type of curves and type of signs and markings.

Minimise Conflict Points:

• The conflict points could be resolved by:
− Space Separation : by access control islands through channelising or grade separation
where justified
− Time Separation : by traffic signals on waiting lanes

Safety:
• Some of the measures, which could enhance safety at intersections, are:
− By eliminating highly trafficked road connections, in rural sections upto 30 percent reduction
in accidents can be made.
− By converting lightly trafficked cross-road into properly designed staggered junctions, 60
percent reduction in accident is possible.
− In urban areas, control of access, street parking and development in the vicinity of intersection
improve the safety considerably.

Intersection Crashes have Multiple Causes

• Poor Physical Design of both the intersections and their approach roadways. A major aspect of safety
design is restricted sight distances. With restricted sight distance, drivers do not have enough time to
stop or avoid hitting a pedestrian or another vehicle.
• Inadequate Traffic Engineering in some cases, traffic control devices-such as signs are improperly
used, placed in the wrong locations, too small to be seen, or have suffered damage or deterioration. In
other instances, the growing number of cars on the road have outpaced what used to be acceptable traffic
engineering measures.
• Driver Licensing and Education often fails to train drivers to safely negotiate intersections. Some
drivers do not know the basic traffic laws, they fail to understand what certain signs and pavement
markings mean, or they do not respect the rights and safety needs of pedestrians.
• Drivers Disregard Traffic Control at Intersections, and even knowledgeable drivers sometimes
disregard the clear message of traffic control devices including stop signs, signals, and pavement
markings. Combined with speeding, disregard for traffic control at intersections is a major source of
serious crashes. Driver distractions, such as usage of cell phone, inattention and drug and alcohol use are
additional human factors that cause accidents with death and injuries.

4.3
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.2 Selection of Junction Type

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

Safety Issues
• It is often difficult to determine the best junction type for any particular location. Taking
into account capacity, delay, safety and physical layout factors several alternatives may
be possible.
• Driver error is a contributory factor in majority of accidents. Often this is influenced by
confusing or conflicting information gained from visual indicators obtained from the road
layouts.
• If junctions are not easily recognisable, drivers will drive more hesitantly and accident
risk may increase.
• Good junction design should allow transition from one route to another or through
movement on the main route with minimum delay and maximum safety.
• Different junction types will be appropriate under different circumstances depending on
traffic flows, speeds and site limitations.
• The use of ‘STOP’ signs at priority intersection which have clear sight lines on both
directions lead many drivers to intringe the law physically by not stopping their vehicle.
Safer Practice
• Junction should be as simple as possible and designed to guide drivers safely through
conflict points.
• Proven design, which have shown to work safely, and which are familiar to drivers should
generally be used.
• Minor roads crossing a major road should be avoided wherever possible and where space
allows, existing crossings should be replaced by staggered junctions, or offset islands on
the minor roads so that minor road traffic has to stop or slow down.
• Simple junction design and 'easy' geometry causes least problems. Junctions should be
compatible with the type of road and with other junctions along the road to provide
consistency.
• Care should be taken to have unambiguous signs and clearly marked lane segregation.
• Sight distances at junctions should be related to the speed of the relevant approach with
stopping sight distance being provided in all cases.

Junction Selection - Traffic Flow

The Figure 4.2.1 shows relation between

the traffic flow and suitability of
intersection type. The regions with the
dark green colour between priority and
roundabout, and light red colour between
signalised & grade separation are the
areas where the selection between two
shall also be governed by other
considerations, such as the availability of
space and cost etc.

Figure 4.2.1: Junction Selection Based on Different

Combinations of Traffic Flows

4.4
Trainers Road Safety Manual

• The advantages and disadvantage of various types of the intersections are given in Table 4.2.1
Table 4.2.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Types of Intersections

Intersection Advantages and

Typical Layout Example
Type Disadvantage

Priority Low flows.

(Give-Way / Can have minor delay
Stop) to minor road.
Major road needs
stopping sight distance.

Roundabouts Low/medium flows.

Good for turners,
weaving to both cross
and merge with traffic
streams.
Minimal delays at
lower flows (ie off-
peak).
Not good for safety of
cyclists and other slow
vehicles.

Traffic Low / medium flows. Traffic Signals

Signals Can accommodate
heavy offside turning
flows by using filter
signal and
channelisation.
Requires less space
than roundabout.
Relatively high delays
at off-peak times.

Grade High flows.

Separated Minimal delays.
Require large areas.
Expensive.

• Staggered crossroads generally have better safety records than straight cross roads. The right / left
stagger are preferred to left / right stagger because traffic turning between the minor roads is less
likely to wait in the center of the major road.

Figure 4.2.2: Right / Left Stagger Junction, a More Safer Option Compared to Left / Right Stagger

4.5
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.3 Factors Affecting Safety at Various Junction Types

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

4.3.1 Priority Junction

Safety Issues
• The major accident types at priority junctions (T- junctions or Cross road type) are:
− Where side road vehicles fail to stop, implying inadequate visibility of the junction
from the minor road,
− Accident with diverging vehicles, implying inadequate sight lines along the major
road.
• If the stop-line is in the dip at the edge of the major road camber, it can be invisible from a
distance on the minor road.
• The problem of delay exists for minor road traffic which has to give way. If the delays are
excessive, emerging drivers may take undue risks in order to enter or cross the main
stream.
• Slow moving or stationary vehicles turning into a side road across a main road stream of
traffic are often the cause of serious accidents. Problems are also caused in urban areas by
inadequate kerbs which give an unclear layout and make little or no provision for
pedestrians.
Safer Practice
• The number of accesses onto main roads should be limited so as to concentrate the hazards
involved at well located and designed intersections.
• Safer practice includes providing adequate visibility and sight distances, clear road
marking and signing, and the provision of islands and bollards to guide and protect drivers.
If visibility is inadequate additional advance warning signs must be used.
• Local widening in the centre of the junction, allow protected waiting areas to be provided
for turning traffic. Where space permits, staggered junctions are preferable to crossroads
on safety grounds.
• The length and taper of diverging lane depends on the design speed of the major road.
Local widening may be required to create such facilities.
• Where high approach speeds are an issue, rumble strips/speed brakers (properly signed)
may be appropriate.
• The minor arm of a T-junction should be sited on the outside of a horizontal curve, if
possible, and not on overtaking sections of single carriageways. The Y-type junctions are
not recommended and should be redesigned as T-type junctions.
• The layout of a priority junction should take account of :
− The speed and volume on the major road,
− The magnitude of the traffic flow,
− The type of vehicles & pedestrians likely to use the junctions, and
− The required level of carriageway provision.
• Other possible safety measures include:
− Restriction of turning movements; provision of skid-resistant surfaces; provision of
pedestrian/cycle facilities; adequate signs; and in urban areas, replacement of
priority junction by roundabout or signals.

4.6
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

• As per IRC SP, 41- 1994 Guidelines for Design of At-grade junctions in Rural and Urban Areas
priority junctions should only be used where flows are relatively low (up to around 5,000 AADT
on the major road and only 3,000 AADT on the minor road).
• Ghost island width should be a minimum of 3.5 m and physical islands should be at least 10.0 m in
width.

Figure 4.3.1.1: Inadequate Provision of Signs at Figure 4.3.1.2: A Well Marked Priority Junction
Priority Junction

Selection of Priority Junction

With the overseas experience in provision of
T-Junctions on a new single carriageway roads for major
and minor roads can be chosen by using the Figure
4.3.1.3. depicting approximately the various levels of T-
Junction which may be applicable for different
combinations of flow for single carriageway roads. The
information takes into account geometrics and traffic
delays, entry and turning traffic flows, and accident costs.
Use of Ghost Island
The use of Ghost Island on the unrestricted rural single
carriageway roads can, in certain circumstances, pose
safety problems. In situations where overtaking
opportunity on the major road on the either side of
junction is restricted, the presence of a widened
carriageway, albeit with hatch markings, could result in Figure 4.3.1.3: Appropriate Level of Provision of T-
junctions on New Single Carriageway Roads for
overtaking manoeuvres which may conflict with left /
Various Major and Minor Road Design Year Traffic
right turns into and out of the minor road. Flows
Solid Lane Line Warning Line as per
Length as per Para 8.5 condition of 7 m,
Site Condition Lane Segments (Not Compulsory)
Taper 1 in B

150 Wide Lines

Give Way
Sign
Continuity Lines
See Note
600 Line Segment Below
300 Cap

Figure 4.3.1.4: Good Practice in Design of Priority Junction

4.7
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.3.2 Roundabouts
Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

Safety Issues
• Few roundabouts are fully marked out according to IRC standards. This means that they
operate incorrectly with traffic on the roundabout giving way to traffic entering.
• Poor visibility on the approaches or across the central island results in drivers making
unwise entry decisions.
• High entry speeds lead to accidents between entering and circulating vehicles.
• The central island may contain concrete and other structures. These substantially
increase accident severity for those vehicles, which fail to negotiate the roundabout
with too high an approach speed.
• Some of the deficiencies in the roundabout are: very acute merging angles, poorly
designed or positioned signing and steep gradients or poor skidding resistance on
approaches.
• Accidents between motorised and non-motorised vehicles can be a particular problem
because of the speed differences as they move through the roundabout, especially if it is
large.
• Hoardings are often erected in the central island of roundabouts restricting the visibility.
Safer Practice
• Good visibility is essential and chevrons or arrow signs should be placed on the central
island.
• High painted kerbs around the island can increase conspicuity and reduce the risk of the
island being overrun.
• Low entry speeds may be achieved by deflecting entering traffic with road markings,
islands and by channelisation.
• Visibility for entering drivers must be sufficient to allow circulating drivers a safe stopping
sight distance at the circulating speed.
• Enforcement of priority is important and additional enforcement resources may be required
in areas where driving behavior is poor.
• Special provisions need to be made for cycles and other slow moving vehicles. Such
movements can be combined with pedestrians at crossings on the approach arms, so that
movement through the roundabout is avoided.
• Facilities for pedestrians to cross the arms of the junction safely should be incorporated in
entry island/refuge design for low pedestrian flows.
• Other measures which have been found to help safety include: improved provision and
siting of signs, making the 'give-way' line more conspicuous, additional chevron signs, the
provision of yellow bar markings on fast dual-carriageway approaches, improved skid
resistance and the reduction of excessive entry widths by hatching or physical means.
Roundabout types

(a): Simple Roundabout (b): Dumble Shaped (c): Two Bridges at (d): Grade Separated
Roundabout Grade Separated Types Interchange With Two
of Roundabouts Roundabouts
Figure 4.3.2.1: Types of Roundabouts

4.8
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

As per IRC : 65 – 1976, Recommended Practice for Traffic Rotaries:
• The maximum volume that a traffic rotary can handle efficiently can be taken as about 3,000
vehicles per hour entering from all intersection legs.
• A rotary is preferable if there are other junctions so near that there would be insufficient space for
the formation of queues.

Figure 4.3.2.2: Inadequate Signages and Marking Figure 4.3.2.3: Well Planned and Designed
at Roundabout Roundabout

Safety Aspects of Roundabouts

• Roundabouts have considerable safety advantages over other types of at-grade intersections. In rural areas
roundabouts are followed in descending safety order by T-junction staggered intersections and cross roads.
Because of perceived safety and cost advantages, many roundabouts have been constructed in different
parts of the world. In urban areas they are used instead of isolated signalized intersections where there are
high turning volumes or as a method of traffic calming to reduce speeds; in rural areas they are often
considered appropriate at major intersections both on undivided roads and on divided four lane roads.
However, roundabouts may not operate satisfactorily where there is a heavy dominant traffic flow
directions in such cases roundabouts often have to be signalized. Also pedestrians and cyclists may require
special provisions at roundabouts. It is now generally accepted that the drivers who exit at a conventional
roundabout leg have little influence on the behaviour of drivers entering at the same leg.
• Roundabouts may improve the safety of intersections by
- eliminating or altering conflict optimizing the safety of all vehicle occupants,
- reducing speed differentials at intersections,
- forcing drivers to decrease speeds as they proceed into and through the intersection.
• The reasons for the increased safety level at roundabouts are:
− Roundabouts have fewer conflict points in comparison
to conventional intersections. The potential for
hazardous conflicts, such as right angle and right turn
head-on crashes is eliminated with roundabout use.
Single-lane approach roundabouts provide greater
safety benefits than multilane approaches because of
fewer potential conflicts between road users, and
because pedestrian crossing distances are short. Figure 4.3.2.4:Roundabout Vs Intersection
• Low absolute speeds associated with roundabouts allow Conflicts Points
drivers more time to react to potential conflicts, also helping
to improve the safety performance of roundabouts.
• Since most road users travel at similar speeds through roundabouts, i.e.. have low relative speeds, crash
severity can be reduced compared to some traditionally controlled intersections.

4.9
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.3.3 Signal Controlled Junctions

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

Safety Issues
• Driver behaviour is often poor and traffic signals are often associated with accidents in
which one vehicle in a traffic stream runs into the one in front which is waiting to turn or
simply stopping for a signal change.
• Drivers continue into an intersection even after the signals have changed to red. This
leads to particularly severe accidents in low flow conditions where speeds are high.
• Turning vehicles are responsible for many pedestrian accidents. Signals with left-turn
on red (not all signals) create more difficulties for pedestrians.
• Accesses immediately adjacent to a junction can make driver decisions much more
complex and lead to hazardous conditions.
• Traffic signals need regular maintenance and continuous power supply. Both signals
and detection equipment are prone to malfunction requiring good maintenance
capability.
Safer Practice
• Signal heads must be conspicuous in all lighting conditions so that a driver can stop safely.
• Signals for competing phases must be located such that they are visible only to the traffic
for whom they are intended.
• A driver's path through the junction must be clear from signs and road markings.
• Turning vehicles should be segregated by lane. Separate right turn lanes, particularly
where it is separately phased, improves safety.
• The phasing of the signals should be as simple as possible, and enable all allowed
movements to take place safely.
• Signals must be adequately maintained with weekly inspections and fault response times
of not more than a day.
• Pedestrian phases, should be provided where flows are high, or where crossing would
otherwise be dangerous.
• Some vehicles will be forced to stop rapidly at signals and the provision of adequate skid
resistance is most important.
• Hoardings or advertising should not distract driver from the traffic signals.

Figure 4.3.3.2: Signalised Junction

Figure 4.3.3.1: Typical Layout of Traffic Signal Figure 4.3.3.3: Signalised Junction at
Installations ITO, Delhi
4.10
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

As per IRC: 93 – 1985, Guidelines on Design and Installation of Road Traffic Signals:
• The bottom of the housing of a signal face, not suspended over a roadway, shall be at a height
of 2.5 metre above the footpath or if there is no footpath then above the pavement grade at the
center (crown) of the roadway.
• The bottom of the housing of a signal face, suspended over a roadway, shall be at a height of
5.5 metre above the pavement grade at the center of a roadway.
• There should be legal authority to prohibit the display of any unathorised sign, advertisement,
signal, marking or devices which interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic control
device.

Figure 4.3.3.4: Pedestrians Disobeying Figure 4.3.3.5: Well Laid Out Signalized
Traffic Signal in Delhi Junction in Delhi

Red-light Running
Red-light violations are a common sight in India. Even in countries with better road user discipline it is a
major problem. Safety is the major concern associated with red-light running. Road accidents statistics from
many countries reveals that red-light running has specifically impacted the safety of signalized intersections
and is considered a very dangerous act by motoring public.
Red-light running can be attributed to a number of intentional and unintentional factors that cause drivers to
run red-lights. Unintentional violation of the red light could result due to poor judgment by the driver or a
deficiency in the design of the intersection. It may be pointed out intentional violators are not affected by
enforcement measures while unintentional red-light runners are most influenced by engineering design. Some
important engineering measures include:
• Improving Signal Visibility through proper placement and number of signal heads so that the same is
visible to all motorists approaching the interaction, increasing the size of display as well as placing the as
close to the line of sight also helps visibility.
• Improving Signal Conspicuity to capture the motorist’s attention. This could be achieved by providing
two red-signals displays within each signal at high incidence of red-light running; use of brighter and
energy efficient LED lens units; use of backplates for increasing contrast and use of strobe lights.
• Increasing Likelihood of Stopping through features like signal ahead signs, advanced warning flashers,
rumble strips, right / left turn signal sign, and improvement pavement surface condition by providing
higher skid resistance.

Clearance Interval
The main purpose of the yellow indication after the green to alert motorists to the fact that the green light is
about to change to red and to allow clearance of vehicles already at the intersection. A bad choice of
clearance interval may lead to the creation of a dilemma zone, an area close to the intersection in which
vehicle can neither stop safely before the intersection, nor clear the intersection without speeding before the
red cross on. The required clearance interval is that time period that guarantees that an approaching vehicle
can either stop safely or proceed through the intersection without speeding.

4.11
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.3.4 Interchanges
• Grade separation is a form of intersection in which one or more conflicting movements
of intersecting highways are segregated in space. An interchange is a grade separation
with connecting roadways which allow route transfer between the intersecting
highways.
• The type of interchange, the shape and pattern of the interchange ramps for the various
turning movements, and their design are governed by several factors such as the
importance of the intersecting highways, the number of intersecting legs, the design
volumes of through and turning traffic movements including their composition, the
design speeds, available right of way and topography.
Type of Interchanges
• Interchanges are generally described by the pattern of the various turning roadways or
ramps which determine their geometric configuration. The common geometric
configurations of interchanges are the trumpet, diamond, cloverleaf, rotary and
directional interchange.
Table 4.3.4.1: Types of Interchange
Type Typical Layout Description

Name stems from the loop ramp located

3- legged within the directional ramp creating the
Trumpet appearance of a bell of a trumpet. In this
case loop is in advance of the structure.
The smaller of the turning movements
should ideally be on the loop ramp but the
availability of space may not always
make it possible.

This configuration is normally used when

the crossing road is in the form of a one-
Split way pair. The problems of sight distance
Diamond and queues backing up, as in case of a
simple diamond, are not experienced on
split diamonds. Drawback is that right-
turning vehicles require three
intersections before being clear of the
interchange.
The type is generally the preferred option
Partial for an interchange between a freeway and
Cloverleaf a heavily trafficed arterial. Loops serve
traffic entering the freeways.

The Rotary interchange has the benefit of

Rotary eliminating intersections on the crossing
Interchange road, replacing them by short weaving
sections. Traffic existing from the
freeway may experience difficulty in
adjusting speed and merging with traffic
on rotary.

4.12
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

As per IRC 92-1986; “Guidelines for Design of Interchange in Urban Area”.
• The following points are helpful in guiding the choice of an interchange at the preliminary
planning stage:
− An interchange is justified when the total traffic of all the arms of the intersection is in excess
of 10,000 PCUs per hour.
− High and disproportionate rate of fatal and major accidents at an intersection not found to
respond to other traffic control or improvement measures might require interchange.
• Horizontal curvature of ramps should preferably be of circular curve with transitions at either
ends.
• The tangent grades on the ramps should be as flat as feasible, and desirably, it should be
limited to a maximum of 4 percent and in no case should it exceed 6 percent.
• The desirable and minimum lengths of weaving sections are 300m and 200 m respectively.

Safety Issues - Interchanges

• It is essential that design of interchanges and the dimensions
of their elements meet the requirements of a smooth change
in the speeds of the traffic streams flowing in different
directions. Many defects in the layout of interchanges may
facilitate improper actions of drivers. Among such
sufficiently widespread design errors are too sharp junctions
of the entry ramps, short traffic weaving sections owning to
close arrangements of entry and exit ramps, and a sharp
reduction in the number of lanes.
Figure 4.3.4.1: Multi Level Grade
• Of great importance for safety and proper operation of traffic Separation in USA
on grade separation and interchanges is the clarity for drivers
of the direction of motion. Even on a simple interchange of the cloverleaf kind, which is quite clear
and understandable on a drawing, drivers sometimes get confused on an actual road when driving
their vehicle. This is explained by the fact that the motorists does not see the entire interchange at
once, but only its separate ramps and approaches whose designation he cannot always understand.
• Examples of typical errors of motorists on interchanges are primarily due to failure of novice drivers
to understand the schemes of interchange. At time it is due to undisciplined drivers using wrong paths
in order to make short cut or to correct an error (driving past the correct place of turning). Errors are
most frequently made by drunk drivers.
• Of great importance for combating road accidents on interchanges is the proper arrangement of road
signs, including those indicating the direction of travel. Their size should correspond to the speeds
allowed on the intersecting roads.
• It is very important to ensure that the pattern of several interchanges along a highway be of the same
general type. It is essential for drivers to know that in all cases a definite lane of the highway is set
aside for through traffic, and that a right-turn act all intersections begins at the same place, e.g. after the
overpass.
• The safety of traffic on grade separations and interchanges
depends to a great extent on the provision in them of additional
lanes on the roadway for acceleration and declaration (speed-
change lanes). Their provision eliminates the accident hazard
due to typical errors of drivers on interchanges – sharp braking
before turn to a ramp that was noticed too late, turning onto a
ramp from the second lane, driving with a sharp turn onto the
roadway of a highway from a ramp.

Figure 4.3.4.2: Interchange to Cater

High Value Flow in USA

4.13
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.4 Elements to Improve Safety at Junctions

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

4.4.1 Visibility
Safety Issues
• The visibility offered to drivers should be sufficient to identify any necessary course of
action and then safely to follow that action.
• A usual critical requirement is that a driver can stop safely, and this needs an
understanding of speeds, reaction times and deceleration rates.
• Sight distance requirements are related to geometric design and speed controls, and are
inherent in all design standards.
• Main road drivers should also be able to see approaching side road vehicles as early as
possible so as to be prepared and able to take evasive action if necessary.
• Pedestrians also need to see and be seen. Crossing movements are often concentrated at
or near junctions.
• The topography of the site may make sight distances difficult to achieve.
• A common accident problem associated with visibility is where a minor road meets a major
road at a shallow angle. This encourages minor road vehicles to negotiate the junction at
speeds higher than is compatible with the visibility available to them.
• Problem at angled approaches is caused by drivers having to turn their heads to see back
along the major road. They may not then see what is happening directly ahead of them
and nose-to-tail collisions can occur.
• Even if visibility may be achieved at the required distance, there may be intermediate
obstructions such as trees or road furniture. In some areas fog, snow or blowing sand
cause problem of visibility at certain times of the year.
Safer Practice
• Junctions should be clearly visible to approaching drivers from an adequate stopping
distance.
• Visibility along conflicting routes should be generous so those drivers waiting to
emerge can see, and be seen by, approaching traffic.
• Permanent and temporary signs must be placed so that they can be read and acted upon
safely.
• At a junction between a minor road and a dual carriageway, where there is sufficient
space in the central reserve for minor road vehicles to perform their manoeuvres in two
stages, the sight distance need only be provided in one direction at a time.
• The visibility distance should be provided from a point setback from the stop line.
• Street lighting contributes significantly to the safe design and operation of junctions,
particularly at night.
• Conspicuity can be increased markedly by the use of reflective road markings and
signs.
• Obstructions on the visibility triangle must be avoided. Consideration should be given
to street furniture, telephone kiosks, road signs, vegetation and parking.

4.14
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

• As per IRC SP, 41- 1994 Guidelines for Design of At-grade Junctions in Rural and Urban Areas,
the stopping sight distance required at uncontrolled intersection for different speeds are given in
Table 4.4.1.
• For priority intersections IRC: 66-1976 Recommended Practice for Sight Distance on Rural
Highways a minimum visibility of 15 m along the minor road, while for the major road, sight
distance equals to 8 seconds travel at design speed is recommended. The visibility distances
corresponding to 8 seconds travel line are set out in Table 4.4.2.

Table 4.4.1: Safe Stopping Sight

Table 4.4.2: Visibility Distance on Major Roads
Distance for Intersections
Minimum Visibility
Speed Safe Stopping Design Speed
Distance along Major
(kmph) Sight Distance (kmph)
Road (m)
20 20 100 270
25 25 80 180
30 30 65 145
40 45 50 110
50 60
60 80
65 90
80 130 Visibility Splay
100 180

Figure 4.4.1.1: Visibility Splay on Straight

Sections

All sight distance obstructions, like bushes, trees and hoardings

in the visibility triangle should be removed to improve safety
(intersections where sight distance is poor have significant
higher injury and total accident rates).
• The driver's eye height is about 1.20m (for cars) and
visibility is usually more easily achieved in the dip of a sag
curve.
• Visibility requirements at roundabouts are to the next exit (or
previous exit) or 50m, whichever is the least, from a point
15m back from the stop line. From the circulating Figure 4.4.1.2: Visibility of Junction
carriageway, the same distance should be provided from a Obstructed due to Roadside
Encroachments
point 2m from the central island.
Junction Lighting
Proper lighting at intersections can provide important safety benefits. The criteria for the provision of roadway lighting are:
• Locations that require a rapid sequence of decisions by the driver
• Locations where improved delineation of the roadway alignment is needed
• Acceleration and deceleration lanes
• Areas that are frequently congested with vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic
• Pedestrian crossings, entertainment districts, sporting arenas and other locations that attract volumes of pedestrian
activity

4.15
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.4.2 Junctions Signs and Markings

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

Safety Issues
• Warning signs and markings are used to give advance notice of a potential hazard
ahead or any unexpected feature of the road geometry.
• They are of particular use where a design element is sub-standard, such as on a bend,
on high speed road or on the approach to junction.
• If all desirable geometric standards are met, then warning signs should be largely
unnecessary except to warn of special features such as pedestrian crossings, and
other potentially hazardous locations.
• Signs and markings are frequently absent, missing from their poles, worn or
illegible.
• A recurring problem with signs is their being obscured, either by permanent features
such as street furniture and vegetation or by parked vehicles and, on dual
carriageways, by moving vehicles in the nearside lane. Signs can themselves obscure
other features and may be visually intrusive from an environmental point of view.
• Too many signs can detract from their objective by overloading the driver with
information leading to confusion, or to a situation where the driver ignores some
signs.
• Signs may not be visible at night because of poor illumination, lack of regular
maintenance or continuous power supply.
Safer Practice
• The siting of signs is critical: they need to be far enough in advance of a feature to
give sufficient time for the message to be understood and obeyed, but not so far in
advance for the message to be forgotten by the time the feature is reached.
• Attention should be paid to vegetation (bearing in mind the rapid growth that occurs
seasonally) and parking restrictions which may obscure signs. Signs must be visible
in darkness.
• Where warning (and other) signs are associated with junctions, great care should be
taken to ensure that they do not obstruct critical lines of sight.
• The stop sign should only be used at intersections where the visibility is poor and it
is essential for the driver to stop on every occasion.
• Emphasis should be on simple, clear and uniform signs using minimal wording.
Symbols should be included where they could aid rapid understanding of the
message. Map type signs are preferred to stack layouts as they are more readily
understood.
• Regular maintenance is important.
• Signs, markings and symbols used must be applied consistently.
• Overhead gantry may be appropriate on expressways where verge signing may not
be more frequently observed by high-speed vehicles.

Figure 4.4.2.1: Junction Without Road Figure 4.4.2.2: Proper Marking at

Signs and Marking in Bhopal Junction in USA

4.16
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

As per IRC:67 – 2001, Code of Practice for Road Sign:
• While posting the signs, adequate care should be taken so as to avoid the chance of their
causing obstruction to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
• In urban areas the lowest edge of any traffic sign should not be lower than 2.1 m from the
pavement when posted on footpaths/side walks.
• In rural areas the clear height of sign from the edge of the pavement should be 1.5 m.
• For advance direction signs on rural roads, the letter size may vary from 8 to 15 cm. In urban
areas the letter size should be from 8 to 10 cm.
• On Expressways bigger letters upto 25 cm high be used particularly for overhead signs.
Junction Signs
• Proper regulatory control, advance warning, and directional guidance are required to avoid driver
expectancy related problems. Signs should be located where they have maximum visibility for road users
but a minimal likelihood of even momentarily obscuring pedestrians as well as motorcyclists and
bicyclists, who are the most vulnerable of all intersection users. Signing needs are different for urban and
rural applications and for different types of intersections.
• Guide signs are important in providing drivers with proper navigational information. This is especially
true at roundabouts where out-of-direction travel may disorient unfamiliar drivers.
• Advance destination guide signs should be used in all rural locations and in urban/ suburban areas where
appropriate. The sign should be either a destination sign using text or using diagrams.
• The designer needs to balance the need for adequate signing with the tendency to use too many signs.

Junction Markings
Carriageway Markings
• Carriageway markings are a cheap and cost-effective way of reducing accidents. At junctions they provide
and indication of priorities, and as centre or lane lines, they indicate the best line for vehicles to follow.
White markings are generally advisory.
• Lane arrows are used on the approaches to traffic signalled junctions which lane should be used for
turning and straight ahead movements. SLOW markings are often used on the approach to a hazard.

Continuous White Lines

• Continuous which centre line markings must not be crossed and are generally used to prevent overtaking
and reduce speeds in roads with poor visibility due to bends of the crests of hills. These are also used
sparingly so that they are more effective and have more impact when they are used. There are criteria for
the introduction of these markings based upon the speed of traffic and the visibility distances.
• It is also an offence to park in any section of road that is marked with continuous white line. Continuous
white lines may only be crossed by traffic that is turning right.

Figure 4.4.2.3: Directional Figure 4.4.2.4: Lane Markings at

Markings at Junctions Junctions and Junction
Approaches
4.17
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.4.3 Channelisation
Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

Safety Issues
• Channelisation by means of road markings, raised kerbs, traffic islands and bollards,
can be used to guide vehicles along a specific path on the approach to and/or exit from
a junction. The benefits of this are that movements are simplified, less confusion arises
and the number of conflict points are minimised.
• Traffic islands have the added benefit of providing a refuge for pedestrians crossing
the road. They also provide a convenient location for street furniture such as signs,
street lighting and drainage covers.
• Channelisation guides the driver through the conflict points, provides safe areas for
him to stop while making a manoeuvre and reduces conflicts between different flows.
• Physical channelisation has the disadvantage of reducing the available road width which
may be critical at the approach to certain junctions.
• The presence of a raised kerb, island or bollard can form a hazard. Particular problems
may occur when a central reserve is installed over a short section which includes a T-
junction.
• Good, clear signs need to be provided with channelisation, otherwise conflicts could
be made worse by forcing uncertain drivers to make an early lane choice, without
adequate directional information. If the wrong lane is selected, some drivers will
attempt to rejoin their route by making undesirable or illegal manoeuvres.
Safer Practice
• Where space does not permit physical channelisation, the same effect may be achieved
using 'ghost islands' indicated by white hatched markings on the road. These are not
self-enforcing unless every second line is raised to create a rumble strip in the same
way as physical islands but the intention remains clear.
• A refuge for turning traffic at priority junctions should have a hatched area at least 3.5
metres wide. If a physical island is used, on high speed roads, 10 metres length for the
refuge may be sufficient, and if local dualling is used, up to 30 metres should be
provided.

Figure 4.4.3.1 : Channelisation Providing Figure 4.4.3.2: Large Channelising Island

Refuge to Pedestrian

Differential Speeds at Junctions

Speed differentials between vehicles in the traffic stream are a primary cause of traffic crashes. Speed
differentials at intersections are inherent as vehicles decelerate to facilitate a turning maneuver. The provision of
exclusive left and right turn lanes can improve safety by removing slower moving turning vehicles from the
higher speed through traffic stream and reducing potential rear end conflicts. In addition, through movements
will experience lower delay and fewer queues. Lane arrangements, location of channelization islands, and
medians should be established to facilitate pedestrian access and the placement of signs, signals, and markings.

4.18
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

As per IRC: SP: 41, Guidelines for the Design of At-grade Intersection in Rural and Urban Areas:
Corner or Directional Island:
• Corner or directional island should be of sufficient size to be readily identified and visible. For
an island to be clearly seen it must have an area of at least 4.5 m2 in urban areas and 7 m² in
rural areas and should usually be bordered with painted raised kerbs. Smaller areas may be
defined by pavement marking. Accordingly triangular islands should not be less than 3.5 m
and preferably 4.5 m on a side after rounding of curves.
• They should be offset from normal vehicle path by 0.3 to 0.6 m.
Centre or Divisional Islands
• Center islands should be proceeded by a clearly marked or constructed natural area of not less
than 1.5 sec travel time at approach speed.
• It should be offset by about 1.5m to 3m from edge of main carriageway and suitably offset
from approach centerline based on the track diagram of all turning movements. It should not
be less than 1.2 m wide and 6 m length.
Pedestrian Refuge Island
• Refuge islands should not be located so as to create a hazard for motor vehicles. The design of
the island should be carefully planned so that a raised island will not constitute a hazard in the
carriageway.
• The refuge should be provided with vertical curbs which should be suitably reflectorised and
illuminated.

Traffic Islands
Islands are included in intersections for one or more of the following purposes, Separation of conflicts;
Control of angle of conflict; Reduction of excessive pavement area; Regulation of traffic and indication of the
proper use of the intersections; Arrangement to favour a predominant turning movement; Protection of
pedestrians; Protection and storage of turning vehicles; and Location of traffic control devices:
• Islands may be kerbed, painted or simply non-paved. Kerbed islands provided the most positive traffic
delineation and are normally used in urban areas to provide some degree of protection to pedestrians and
traffic control devices. Areas of central cross hatching, commonly called “ghost island” markings, are
useful as a means of reducing accidents by separating on-coming traffic, reducing traffic speed and
providing safe right turning area. These, along with central traffic islands, have been shown to play a
major part in reducing motorcycle accidents.
• Driver tend to find an archipelago of small islands confusing and are liable to select an incorrect path
through the intersection area. As a general design principle, a few large islands are thus to be preferred to
several small islands. Islands should not be less than about 5 square meters in area to ensure that they are
easily visible to approaching drivers. The designer should bear in mind that islands are hazards and
should be less hazardous than whatever they are replacing.

Figure 4.4.3.3: General Types and Shapes of Islands

4.19
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.4.4 Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

Safety Issues
• Acceleration and Deceleration lanes are used to aid the transition between the high
speed of the major road and the low speed required in order to negotiate the junction.
They enhance safety and reduce delay.
• Acceleration and Deceleration lanes allow all turning vehicles to speed up or slow
down without impeding through traffic.
• Acceleration lanes are restricted to the nearside only, offside deceleration lanes may
also be suitable to assist turning traffic at channelised priority and traffic signal
controlled junctions.
• Drivers using acceleration lanes have a narrow angle of vision with the main road
flow. Drivers merging in a stream of vehicles may have difficulty in watching both the
front vehicle and the stream into which they are merging.
• Acceleration or deceleration lanes may be blocked by parked or stopped vehicles and
this may force drivers out into the main stream.
Safer Practice
• Good visibility is important and should be maintained through the acceleration and
deceleration lanes. In the case of merging lanes in particular, the lines of sight should
be kept free from street furniture and road signs.
• To avoid obstruction of the lanes, parking restrictions should be implemented and
strictly enforced.
• Deceleration lanes can be used in conjunction with protected turning bays to provide a
safe location for vehicles to slow down and wait before making the crossing
manoeuvre.
• Conspicuity can be enhanced by using reflective road studs of different colours.

Figure 4.4.4.1: Insufficient Length of Figure 4.4.4.2: Insufficient Length of

Deceleration Lane Acceleration Lane

Figure 4.4.4.3: Deceleration Lane Layout Figure 4.4.4.4: Acceleration Lane Layout

4.20
Trainers Road Safety Manual

Speed Change Lanes

Speed-change lanes are additional lanes designed and used exclusively for the acceleration and deceleration of
vehicles entering or leaving the through-traffic lanes at flared intersections. Providing proper lengths of
acceleration and deceleration lanes is crucial to the safe and comfortable existing and entering vehicles. Speed-
change lanes are required at all at-grade intersections on high-speed high-volume roads, as well as being
automatic at all at-grade intersections. They are desirable at intersection on all other roads. As per IRC SP 41,
speed lanes are more important in rural areas. In urban areas such lanes are rarely required but provision of short
lanes to assist merging and diverging measures are provided in conjunction with channelising islands. Speed
change lanes should be uniformly tapered and have a set back of 5.4 m at the tangent point of curve leading into
or out of minor road. The turning lane should be reduced in width to 4.25 m by carriageway marking etc.
Deceleration lanes are designed to help motorists, who are leaving the high-speed road, reduce their speed to
make a safe exit. Deceleration lanes have a priority of construction over acceleration lanes since, without them,
vehicles leaving the through carriageway have to slow down within a high-speed traffic lane and this is a major
cause of rear end collisions. Deceleration lanes are needed on the near side for left turning traffic and on the
right turn lane where provision is made for right turning traffic. Its length is dependent on the speed at which
vehicles can manoeuvre on to the auxiliary lane, the rate of deceleration of the vehicle, and the speed at which
vehicles turn after traversing the lane.
Acceleration lanes permit entering vehicles to increase speed in order to enter the major road at the speed of
traffic on it. If the through traffic is very heavy, then the entering traffic is provided with space to manoeuvre as
it awaits in the main stream of vehicles. As much as possible of the acceleration lane should be adjacent on and
flush with the through carriageway. At the end of the acceleration lane there should be no vertical kerb between
the lane and the shoulder, so that a vehicle that cannot find a gap in the, traffic stream is provided with a safety
outlet and can over-run on to the shoulder if necessary. Again its length is dependent on the design speed of the
through highway, the rate of acceleration, the design speed of the ramp and the volumes of through and entering
traffic.

Table 4.4.4.1: Minimum Acceleration Lane Lengths

Acceleration Length (m)
for entrance curve Design Speed (kmph)
Highway
Stop
25 30 40 50 60 65 75 80
conditions
Design Speed Speed Reached and initial speed (kmph)
(kmph) (kmph) 0 20 30 35 40 50 60 65 70
50 40 60 - - - - - - - -
65 50 120 100 75 70 40 - - - -
80 60 230 210 190 180 150 100 50 - -
100 75 360 340 330 300 280 240 160 120 50
110 85 490 470 460 430 400 380 310 250 180
Table 4.4.4.2: Minimum Deceleration Lane Lengths
Deceleration Length (m)
for Design Speed of Exit curve
Highway
Stop
25 30 40 50 60 65 75 80
conditions
Average for Average Running Speed of Exit Curve
Design Speed
Running Speed
(kmph) 0 20 30 35 40 50 60 65 70
(kmph)
50 45 70 60 50 40 - - - - -
65 60 95 90 80 70 60 50 - - -
80 70 130 120 120 110 100 90 70 50 -
100 85 160 150 150 140 130 125 100 90 70
105 90 175 165 160 150 150 130 120 100 85
110 95 190 180 175 170 160 150 130 120 100

4.21
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.5 Provisions for Vulnerable Road User

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

4.5.1 Pedestrian
Safety Issues
• Pedestrians tend to follow traffic routes where there are often concentrations of
pedestrians wishing to cross roads at junctions or specific high generators of
pedestrian traffic such as hospitals and schools.
• It is particularly important to discourage people from crossing near but not on a
crossing as this is where drivers least expect to be confronted by a pedestrian.
• Crossing at junctions can be particularly hazardous. At intersections visibility may be
poor, especially at night, and the complex traffic movements may be difficult for a
pedestrian to understand. Drivers may not always signal their intended manoeuvres.
• In order to provide additional traffic capacity at junctions, local widening is sometimes
carried out. This increases the crossing distance, again making matters worse for
pedestrians.
• Problems of visibility and the safe judgement of approach speeds may be hampered by
poor or inadequate sight distances or the presence of obstructions such as parked
vehicles as driver behaviour at crossings is very poor and drivers rarely give way to
pedestrians at unsignalised crossings.
• Kerbs are often high and channelising islands planted and protected by railings are
unable to be used by pedestrians. At traffic signalised junctions median islands often
stop short of the pedestrian crossings, if present, or stop line leaving pedestrians
unprotected. Islands and medians are often too narrow to fully protect pedestrians.
Safer Practice
• The simplest and cheapest method is a central refuge, which allows a pedestrian to
negotiate one traffic stream at a time.
• Dropped crossings should be provided at pedestrian facilities. Ramps should not
exceed 8% gradient and textured surfacing will assist blind people.
• Small radii kerbing at corners can help pedestrians cross the mouths of side roads by
reducing the speed of turning vehicles and reducing carriageway width. However, this
may result in an increased risk of large vehicles mounting the kerb, so protective
features such as bollards may have to be used.
• Possible provision away from intersections
includes crossing patrols, bridges, subways and
measures to reduce traffic speed such as road
humps.
• At traffic signals, it is possible to include a
pedestrian-only phase. Grade-separated
facilities are the safest but also the most
expensive. Pedestrian fences may need to be
used to encourage their use.
Figure 4.5.1.1: Subway in Delhi for Easy and
• Safe stopping sight distances are essential and Safe Crossing for Pedestrian
visibility must be maintained in all lighting
conditions.
• Careful consideration should be given to the siting of bus stops in order to minimise
visibility problems.

4.22
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

As per IRC SP: 40, 40- 1994 Guideline for Design of At-grade junction in Rural and Urban Area,
Pedestrian Guardrails
• Railing barriers should be provided to prevent people from crossing the junctions diagonally at
signalized intersections. The barrier must open only at planned crossing facility (at the zebra
crossing). At unsignalised junctions they should be provided for sufficient length to guide the
pedestrians to the nearest planned pedestrian crossing.
Zebra Crossing
• For safety reasons, the zebra crossing should be somewhat setback from the carriageway line.
However, the setback distance should not be so much as to cause an appreciable increase in
walking distance for the pedestrians.
• A zebra crossing should not be sited within 150 m of another such crossing. The width of the
zebra crossing must be adequate and should generally lie within a range of 2.0 m to 4.0 m.
Grade-Separated Pedestrian Facilities
• The grade-separated pedestrian facilities are required when control at-grade pedestrian crossing,
decisively fails to mitigate the problems of pedestrian-vehicle collision. Viability of a grade
separated pedestrian facility must be checked against delay costs for both pedestrians and
vehicle drivers/users including increase in vehicle operating costs inflicted by increased delays.
• Subways should be kept closed during night hours in order to avoid misuse. The entire subway
must be kept properly illuminated.
• The Subways usually proves to be much more acceptable to the users than an Foot-Over-Bridge.

Figure 4.5.1.2: Zebra crossing at intersection Figure 4.5.1.3: Segregation of Pedestrian

through Foot-Over-Bridge

Key Elements of Safety for Pedestrians

Key elements that affect a pedestrian facility that engineers/planners should incorporate into their design are:
• Keep corners free of obstructions to provide enough room for pedestrians waiting to cross.
• Maintain adequate lines of sight between drivers and pedestrians on the intersection corner and in the
crosswalk.
• Ensure kerb ramps, transit stops (where applicable), pushbuttons, etc. are easily accessible.
• Clearly indicate the actions pedestrians are expected to take at crossing locations.
• Design corner radii to ensure vehicles do not drive over the pedestrian area yet are able to maintain
appropriate turning speeds.
• Ensure crosswalks clearly indicate where crossings should occur and are in desirable locations.
• Provide appropriate intervals for crossings and minimize wait time.
• Limit exposure to conflicting traffic, and provide refuges where necessary.
• Ensure the crosswalk is a direct continuation of the pedestrian’s travel path.
• Ensure the crossing is free of barriers, obstacles, and hazards.

4.23
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

4.5.2 Provisions for Cyclists and Slow Moving Vehicles

Salient Points from Road Safety Manual (1998)

Safety Issues
• Cycles and other slow moving vehicles need separate consideration in a road system
due to their different characteristics of movement, poor conspicuity and vulnerability
in the event of an accident.
• The problems of slow moving vehicles stem from the differences in speed and their
inability to get clear of trouble quickly.
• Shared pedestrian/cyclist facilities are sometimes illegally used by motor-cyclists
unless they are physically prevented from doing so by the installation of carefully
located special barriers.
Safer Practice
• At priority junctions, cyclists can be assisted by segregating their movements by
channelisation or by providing central refuges allowing movements to be made in two
stages.
• At traffic signals a useful method of assisting slow moving vehicles is to allow them a
separate phase or to give them a 'head start' from a separate stop line a few metres
ahead of the stop line for other traffic.
• For cycles and other small vehicles it is possible to allow shared use of pedestrian
facilities where they exist as a convenient alternative. In the UK, such shared use of
facilities with pedestrians has proved a safe measure with pedestrian and cycle flows
up to about 300 per hour.
• One-way cycle lanes should be a minimum of 2.0m wide (2.5 m for cycle rickshaws).
Two-way cycle lanes should be a minimum of 3.0 m in width (5.0 m for cycle
rickshaws).
• Cycle facilities must be attractive to cyclists or they will remain unused. They should
not involve long detours, steep gradients, steps or dismounting, and should be well
maintained. It is important to maintain continuity of routes so the inclusion of "cycle
friendly'" facilities.

Figure 4.6.1: Adequate Provision for Cyclist at Figure 4.6.2: Well Marked and Demarcated
Intersection Cycle Lane

4.24
Trainers Road Safety Manual

IRC Recommendations and Guidelines

• Segregation of slow moving vehicles including cycles could be achieved by providing a
separate lane of about 5 m width on either side of the main carriageway for the exclusive use
of these vehicles.
• It is desirable to separate these lanes from the main carriageway by a verge of about 1.0 m
width. If it is not possible to provide such verges, physical segregation of slow and fast
vehicles lanes could be achieved by providing 15 cm high cement concrete/stone blocks of
30X30 cm square cross-sections at a clear gap of 30 cm.
Bicycle Box
• A bicycle box uses advance stop bars that are placed on the approach to a signalized intersection,
typically in the left most lane, at a location upstream from the standard stop bar location. These create a
dedicated space for bicyclists—a bicycle box—to occupy while waiting for a green indication.
• This treatment may be applicable in situations where vehicle/bicycle collisions have been observed in
the past, or vehicle/bicycle conflicts are observed in field observations.
• Such a treatment was found to be effective in Europe, resulting in a 35 percent reduction in through-
bicycle/left-turning-vehicle collisions.

Bike Lanes
• While bicycle lanes are frequently used on street
segments, AASHTO cautions against the use of bicycle
lane markings through intersections. Special lanes for
bicyclists can cause problems to the extent that they
encourage bicyclists and motorists to violate the rules
of the road for drivers of vehicles. Specifically, a bike
lane continued to an intersection encourages left turning
motorists to stay in the right lane, not the left (bike)
lane, in violation of the rule requiring that left turns be
made from the lane closest to the kerb. Similarly,
straight-through, or even right-turning, cyclists are
encouraged to stay left.
Figure 4.6.3: Dedicated Cycle lane at Intersections
• Some advocate placing the bike lane between the
through lane and the left-turn only lane. A left-turn only lane encourages motorists to make left turns by
moving close to the kerb (as the traffic law requires). A
cyclist going straight can easily avoid a conflict with a
left-turning car by staying outside of the left-turn lane.
A bike lane to the right of the turn lane encourages
bicyclists to stay out of the left-turn lane when going
straight.
• This treatment may be applicable in situations where
there are a high number of bicyclists using the road or
where bicycle use is being promoted or encouraged.

• Some European literature suggests that bicycle lane

markings can increase motorist expectation of
bicyclists; one Danish study found a 36-percent Figure 4.6.4: Well Demarcated Cycle Lanes
reduction in bicycle collisions when these were marked.
Other research concludes that bicycle paths along arterials typically increase cyclists’ vulnerability to a
collision at signalized intersections; however, raised and brightly colored crossings reduce the number
of bicycle/vehicle conflicts and should improve safety.

4.25
Designing for Road Safety: Junctions

References:

1 AASHTO, USA (1990). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets.

2 Babkov V.F. (1975). Road Conditions and Road Safety, Mir Publication, Moscow.
3 FHA & ITE, (2003). Making Intersections Safer: A Tool box of Engineering Countermeasures to
Reduce Red-light Running.
4 FHWA, USA (2000). Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.
5 FHWA, USA (2004). Signalized Intersections: An Informational Guide.
6 IRC 65-1976, Recommended Practice for Traffic Rotaries.
7 IRC 92-1986, Guidelines for the Design of Interchanges in the Urban Areas.
8 IRC 93-1985, Guidelines on Design and Installation of Road Traffic Signals.
9 IRC:67 – 2001, Code of Practice for Road Sign.
10 IRC Special Publication 41-1994, Guidelines on Design of At-grade Intersections in the Rural and
Urban Areas.
11 IRC Special Publication -1992 : Type Designs for Intersections on National Highways.
12 IRC (1986)- International Seminar on Road Safety Proceedings, Srinagar
13 IS 10322 Part 1-1982: Specification for Luminaires Part 1 General Requirements.
14 Ministry of Road Transport and Highways GOI, TRL, Ross Silcock, CRRI (1998). Manual for Safety
in Road Design, A Guide for Highway Engineers.
15 Mittal Nishi, S.M. Sarin, R.K. Bajpai and K.V. Ganesh Babu (2003).“Effect of Hoardings on Safety
and Amenity”, Road Safety Digest, vol. 13 No.3, Sep.
16 Ross Silcock, TRL, Asian Development Bank (1997). Road Safety Guidelines for Asia Pacific
Region.
17 Sarin S.M. et.al, (1985), “Right-of-Way At Unsignalised Intersection”, Indian Highways, Volume 13
(10).
18 Sarna A. C. Planning and Design of Road Interchanges for Bombay Metropolitan Region, India,
Indian Roads Congress, India.
19 Sarna A. C. Saturation Flow Studies at Traffic Light Controlled Intersections - Published in the
Journal of Indian Roads Congress.
20 Sarna A. C. Performance of Traffic Light Controlled Intersections - Published in the Journal of Indian
Roads Congress.
21 South African National Road Agency (2004), NRA Geometric Design Guidelines.

22 TRL, Ross Silcock, ODA (1991, reprinted 1994). Towards Safer Roads in Developing Countries, A
Guide for Planners & Engineers.

4.26