Article from our Principal Engineer, Kenn Beer
I’m seeing a lot of Road Safety Audits (RSAs) done by the same company that did the design. This risks the integrity of the RSA and the RSA practice overall.
One of the fundamental principles of RSAs is 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. Why?:
1. Integrity: unbiased road/street safety advice
2. Objectivity: fresh set of eyes on the project
3. Credibility: confidence from all stakeholders
The significance of independence cannot be overstated. Auditors need to be free of the influence and pressures of the project. They need to be able to provide unbiased assessments. They need to be able to see the project with a fresh set of eyes to identify issues that those close to the project may have missed.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 with emerging industry practice of companies doing both the design and the RSA?:
· Conscious or unconscious bias
· Pressure from management (time, costs, client relationship)
· People being too familiar with the project to catch errors/issues
· The credibility of the RSA is questioned
· Less confidence in the RSA process resulting in less RSAs being done.
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴?:
𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘴 – those procuring RSAs don’t know the importance of independence.
𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺 – people think the process will be faster (or the project delivery can be faster).
𝘐𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 – people think they will have more ability to influence the outcomes of the RSA (especially if they are concerned that RSA findings will be challenging or inconvenient).
𝘈𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 – Most jurisdictions (and Austroads) are not 100% clear in their guidelines and policies on what independence means.
𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 – some people think they can make a few extra dollars doing their own RSAs.
𝙌𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪: How do we address this as an industry?