1

About iRAP
The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) is a registered charity dedicated to saving lives
through safer roads.

iRAP works in partnership with government and non-government organisations to:

• inspect high-risk roads and develop Star Ratings and Safer Roads Investment Plans

• provide training, technology and support that will build and sustain national, regional and local
capability

• track road safety performance so that funding agencies can assess the benefits of their investments.

Road Assessment Programs (RAP) are now active in more than 50 countries throughout Europe; Asia Pacific;
North, Central and South America and Africa.

iRAP is financially supported by the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society. Projects receive support
from the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, automobile associations, regional development banks and
donors.

About JKR
Jebatan Kerja Raya (JKR) is the Public Works Department (PWD) of Malaysia. As the technical arm of the
Government of Malaysia, PWD acts as the main implementing agency in carrying out development projects
throughout the country. JKR’s vision is to become a world-class service provider and centre of excellence in
asset management, project management and engineering services for the development of the nation's
infrastructure through creative and innovative human capital and state-of-the-art technology.

For more information

This report was written by:

Luke Rogers, Senior Road Safety Engineer, Asia Pacific, luke.rogers@irap.org.

Hamzah Bin Hashim, Assistant Director, Road Rehabilitation Unit, Road Facility Maintenance Branch, Public
Works Department of Malaysia (JKR), hamzahh@jkr.gov.my.

© International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) 2011

iRAP technology including protocols, processes and brands may not be altered or used in any way without the express
written agreement of iRAP.
iRAP is registered in England & Wales under company number 05476000. Charity number 1140357.
Registered Office: 60 Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DS.
iRAP504.10. January 2011.

2
1 Introduction
In 2009, some 18 people were killed each day in road crashes in Malaysia, representing a rate of 24 deaths
per 100,000 population. Malaysia has one of the highest deaths rates among the ASEAN nations (WHO,
2009). Almost three quarters (72%) of Malaysia’s road deaths were vulnerable road users, and six in ten
(60%) were motorcyclists (MIROS, 2010).

An important part of the Malaysian Government’s response to the growing road safety problem is its black
spot program, which aims to improve high risk sections of road with affordable infrastructure treatments.
Evaluating this program has been a challenge, given that reliable crash data is often not available or
evaluation is required before adequate crash data has accumulated after the road is improved.

The OECD report Towards Zero points out that ‘intermediate outcomes’ or ‘safety performance indicators’
provide a means of undertaking evaluations in the absence of good crash data (OECD/ITF, 2008). Measures
such as helmet wearing rates and seat belt wearing rates have been used effectively in road safety behaviour,
and iRAP provides a set of such safety performance indicators for road infrastructure.

This report describes a methodology that uses iRAP Road Protection Scores (RPS) and Star Ratings to
estimate the change in road safety risk as a result of infrastructure improvements undertaken at several high
risk sites in Malaysia under the black spot program. Changes in risk for car occupants, motorcyclists,
pedestrians and bicyclists at 10 sites were assessed.

The results indicate that Star Ratings provide a useful tool for evaluating changes in road safety risk. The
comparison of RPS and Star Ratings showed that of the ten sites assessed, four experienced an
improvement to the total Star Rating and all but one showed a reduction in risk for at least one of the four road
user types.

3
2 Background

2.1 Road Safety in Malaysia

As a developing, middle-income country, Malaysia has experienced significant growth in recent years. With
the economy both modernising and diversifying, investment in new infrastructure has been necessary to
sustain the growth rate and increase the economy’s overall productivity. Investment in transportation
infrastructure has continued to feature in Malaysia’s economic development plans with RM11 billion or
1 th
US$3.52billion allocated to new road projects and existing road upgrades in the 9 Malaysia Plan (2006-
2010).

The paved road network in Malaysia reached 90,000km in 2009 and the number of registered vehicles
continues to rise. With almost 8 million registered private motorcars, over 1 million commercial vehicles and 9
million motorcycles (motorcycles/powered two-wheelers make up 47% of the total registered vehicles in
Malaysia) the upward trend in vehicle ownership looks set to continue (Road Transport Department of
Malaysia).

With the rise in motorised traffic, Malaysia has seen the number of road crashes increase in recent years.
Almost three quarters (72%) of Malaysia’s road deaths were vulnerable road users, and six in ten (60%) were
motorcyclists (MIROS, 2010). Efforts are being made to address the growing problem but despite recent road
safety programs, collision rates continue to rise.

Although the number of road deaths had remained relatively constant between the years 2003 and 2007, a
recent increase in fatalities has caused concern. In 2009 6,745 people lost their lives on Malaysia’s roads,
that is 18 people every day and represents a rate of 24 deaths per 100,000 population. Malaysia now has
one of the highest deaths rates among the ASEAN nations (WHO, 2009).

2.2 Malaysia iRAP pilot study

In 2006, iRAP developed a methodology based on road inspections to produce Star Ratings and
countermeasure programs called Safer Roads Investment Plans. This was a significant step in the
development of road safety in low- and middle-income countries as detailed and reliable crash data, used to
provide clear information on risk and to design road safety improvements in developed countries, is often not
available in lower income countries.

1
Based on an exchange rate of 1 Malaysian ringgit = 0.32 US dollars

4
iRAP was invited to work in four pilot countries, each of which offered exposure to a variety of different
highway networks and road safety issues. Due to the strong stakeholder support, local expertise and
commitment to improving its road safety record, Malaysia was ideally suited and became one of the pilot
projects along with South Africa, Costa Rica and Chile. Key partners in the project were:

• Public Works Department Malaysia (JKR)

• Automobile Association of Malaysia (AAM)

• Malaysia Road Safety Department (JKJR)

• Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS)

3,867km of Malaysia’s expressways and major federal roads were inspected, making up 6% of the country’s
paved roads. Overall, the results showed that:

• 58% of roads rate 3-stars or better for car occupants and motorcyclists

• 2% rate 3-stars or better for bicyclists

• 13% 3-stars or better for pedestrians.

Table 1 Star Ratings for Malaysian national roads and expressways (iRAP, 2009)

In order to improve safety on the network, 22 different countermeasures were recommended with an
investment of RM550million (US$180million) delivering economic benefits of close to RM9.25billion
(US$3billion) over 20 years and saving an estimated 32,000 fatal and serious injuries in that period.

2.3 Road Protection Scores and Star Ratings

Star Ratings provide a simple and objective measure of the level of safety provided by a road’s design and
are based on highway features which have an impact on the likelihood of a crash and its severity.

Star Ratings are based on Road Protection Scores (RPS) which are calculated at 100 metre intervals for car
occupants, motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists, based on the relative risk factors for each road attribute.
The iRAP model produces four overall RPS: for car occupants, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians. For
each of these road users, crash-type RPS are produced, as shown in Table 2.

5
Table 2 Crash types by road user
Car occupants Motorcyclists Bicyclists Pedestrians
• Run-off road • Run-off road • Travelling along road • Walking along road
• Head-on • Head-on • Crossing road • Crossing road
• Intersections • Intersections • Intersections

The scores are developed by combining relative risk factors using a multiplicative model. This data can then
be used to develop affordable and economically sound Safer Road Investment Plans that, once implemented,
improve road safety and save lives. The plans draw on more than 70 proven road improvement measures
ranging from low-cost road markings and pedestrian refuges to higher-cost intersection upgrades and full
highway duplication.

The safest roads (4 and 5-stars) typically provide well designed highway features such as grade separated
intersections, good quality safety barrier, paved shoulders and provision for vulnerable road users that
research has shown will help to reduce the likelihood and severity of collisions. 1 and 2-star roads are often
undivided, high speed, single carriageway roads with poor delineation, frequent curves and intersections and
inadequate provision for vulnerable users.

The OECD report Towards Zero points out that ‘intermediate outcomes’ or ‘safety performance indicators’
provide a means of undertaking evaluations in the absence of good crash data (OECD/ITF, 2008). Measures
such as helmet wearing rates and seat belt wearing rates have been used effectively in road safety behaviour.
The iRAP RPS and Star Ratings provide a set of such safety performance indicators for road infrastructure.

In 2010, Harwood et al (2010) undertook a validation study of the Star Rating method for roads in the United
States. The results provide strong evidence that vehicle occupant crash rates for road sections generally
decrease as vehicle occupant Star Ratings increase (Harwood et al, 2010). The authors concluded that:

The star rating protocol now provides a capability that has not previously been available to highway
agencies—selection of rational, cost-effective countermeasures for improving safety on a highway
network without the need for detailed network-wide crash data.

More information on the methodology used to calculate RPS and Star Ratings is available in Star Rating
Roads for Safety: The iRAP Methodology, which is available at
http://irap.org/media/9573/irap504.04_star_rating_roads_for_safety.pdf.

2.4 Malaysia Black Spot Program

The term ‘accident black spot’ is commonly used to describe locations where road traffic collisions have
historically concentrated. Black spot programs directly target improvements to the safety of locations that
have a proven crash history or at sites that can be shown to be of high-risk to the road user. Funding for
these single-site road safety schemes is mainly focused on cost-effective engineering measures such as
improving the road surface, improved delineation and the removal (or protection) of hazardous road side
objects.

6
The identification and treatment of such sites, using relatively low-cost engineering measures has proven to
be extremely cost-effective. A study by Sayer in 1994 showed that a sample of single site safety schemes in
2
the UK provided first year rates of return ranging from 65% to 950%. Other black spot programs from around
the world have also proved successful with the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics in
Australia reporting benefits of fourteen dollars for each dollar of expenditure in their Federal Road Safety
Black Spot Program.3

The Malaysia Black Spot Program was established several years ago (becoming part of the Works Minister
KPI Program in 2009) to identify and treat high risk sites using proven, cost-effective engineering measures.
The available collision data is collected and analysed by the Highway Planning Unit at the Ministry of Works.
Those sites experiencing more than three fatal crashes of a similar type, or greater than five, if crash types
differ, within a three year period are recorded and investigated.

The ten sites treated in 2009 are geographically spread throughout Peninsular Malaysia, as shown in Figure
1. The sites were predominantly located on relatively high speed rural roads with poor median and roadside
protection. Treatments varied from minor improvements to delineation, to pavement resurfacing and junction
improvements. Treatment costs ranged from US$63,000 to US$250,000 per site with a combined program
total of $1.35 million. Further details of each site are shown in Table 3.

Six of the ten sites treated in the 2009 Black Spot Program were included in the pilot study, for those sites that
were not part of the initial pilot study the “before” RPS and Star Ratings were produced based on
photographs supplied by JKR (Public Works Department Malaysia), taken prior to the safety improvement
works. This method was also used for Site 8, FT008 Gua Musang, Kelantan, as the exact location could not
be identified.

To date, no formal evaluation of the Black Spot Program has been undertaken, partly due to the lack of
information held on historical sites and also because insufficient time has elapsed since the implementation of
the 2009 program to gather adequate crash data. Therefore the use of this methodology, that uses Road
Protection Scores to estimate the change in road safety risk as a result of infrastructure improvements, has
proved very useful to the Public Works Department of Malaysia in tracking performance.

2
http://www.transport-links.org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_578_PA1337_1994.pdf.
3
http://www.btre.gov.au/info.aspx?NodeId=26&ResourceId=48

7
Figure 1 Location of Black Spot sites treated in 2009

8
Table 3 Locations treated in the 2009 black spot program
Site
assessed
Site Road Section Cost
Road Name District State Latitude Longitude Work undertaken in 2007
No. Number No. (US$)
iRAP pilot
project?

Improvements to carriageway delineation and

roof to existing pedestrian overbridge. Note
that the bridge was not constructed under the
1 FT005 Jalan Muar - Melaka Muar Johor 189.00 2.098933 102.524472 63,500 Yes
2009 program although it is included in the
analysis as it was built after the pilot study
(2007).

Jalan Gemas - Negeri Minor improvements to delineation, localised

2 FT010 Jempol 41.80 2.887317 102.410039 154,000 No
Kemayan Sembilan shoulder widening and traffic island.

Jalan Damar Laut - Shoulder widening, improved delineation,

3 FT060 Manjung Perak 35.20 4.41965 100.631733 157,000 No
Pantai Remis rumble strips and resurfacing.

Jalan Alor Setar - Junction layout improvements, resurfacing

4 FT007 [not known] Perlis 33.00 6.339881 100.192778 134,000 Yes
Kangar and minor improvements to delineation.

Jalan Butterworth - Safety barrier, resurfacing, street lighting and

5 FT001 Pendang/Yan Kedah 833.10 5.931667 100.41655 95,500 Yes
Alor Setar minor improvements to delineation.

Jalan Kuala
Shoulder widening, safety barrier, resurfacing
6 FT003 Terengganu - Kemaman Terengganu 399.00 4.286928 103.451643 87,000 Yes
and junction signalisation.
Kuantan

Jalan Kuantan - Safety barrier, shoulder widening, rumble

7 FT012 Rompin Pahang 39.00 2.844861 102.925528 154,000 No
Segamat strips and improved delineation at curve.

Jalan Gua Musang - Safety barrier, resurfacing and minor

8 FT008 Gua Musang Kelantan 245.50 [not known] [not known] 250,000 Yes
Kuala Krai improvements to delineation.

Jalan Batu Pahat - Temporary median barrier, improved

9 FT050 Batu Pahat Johor 16.00 1.849783 103.059583 63,500 No
Kluang delineation and drainage works.

Jalan Klang - Teluk Resurfacing, junction widening and improved

10 FT005 Kuala Selangor Selangor 468.00 3.243867 101.315382 189,000 Yes
Intan delineation at junction.

9
3 Methodology
This study involved comparing the Road Protection Scores (RPS) and Star Ratings for each site before the
improvements were undertaken, with those after the improvements. The method used is described in this
section of the report.

3.1 Data collection

The initial process required the gathering of information on each of the sites where safety improvement works
had been undertaken. Road attribute data for those sites included within the pilot study was downloaded from
4
the web-based iRAP online software. A sample of the road attribute data for Site 3 is shown in Table 4.

Details of each of the improvements were sourced from Public Works Department, Malaysia (JKR) databases.
The information used included geo-reference data such as road name and number, section number (or
chainage) and latitude and longitude. A description of the remedial works and countermeasures was obtained
along with photographs of the road taken both before and after improvements had been made. Additional
information was required for those sites that had not been included within the original pilot study such as
operating speeds.5

Although the focus of this study is on improvements undertaken through the 2009 Black Spot Program, the
installation of the pedestrian bridge at Site 1, in Muar, has also been included as construction was completed
in 2007, after the initial pilot study but prior to the 2009 program.

3.2 Star Rating model version

The original RPS generated during the Malaysia pilot study were calculated using a version of the software
that was under development. Following the four iRAP pilot projects (Malaysia, South Africa, Costa Rica and
Chile), the iRAP model was updated based on experience gained during the projects. Updates most relevant
to this study include the addition of ‘rumble strips’ (profiled edge markings) and recording sidewalk provision
on each side of the road separately. For the purposes of this study, the updated model was used to calculate
the RPS and Star Ratings for both the before and after cases.

4
The iRAP online software is at http://www.iraptools.net Access to the Malaysia results is managed by MIROS and JKR.
The Malaysia Core Data file is found in Reports > Country specific reports > Malaysia. The core data is sorted by road
name, section and distance to identify the individual data row for each site.
5
For more information on the definition of ‘operating speeds’, see Vehicle Speeds and the iRAP Protocols, available at:
http://irap.org/media/31613/vehicle_speeds_and_the_irap_protocols.pdf.

10
3.3 Before and after attributes
For each site, the road attributes for the road before improvements were made (‘before’) and after the
improvements (‘after’) were listed. Table 4 shows an example of the road attribute list for the FT060 site in
Manjung district, Perak, where the paved shoulder was widened, rumble strips were laid and improvements
were made to delineation and pavement condition (highlighted in green).

For the purposes of this study, the risk was modelled using 100 metre sections of road, which is the standard
length for iRAP assessments, although some of the improvements have been applied to longer lengths of
road.

Table 4 Road attributes at Site 3, FT060 before and after the improvements

Road Attribute Before After

Carriageway type Undivided, single carriageway Undivided, single carriageway
Motorcycle volume (% of total traffic) 11% to 20% 11% to 20%
Bicycle volume Not recorded Not recorded
Pedestrian flow (crossing) Not recorded Not recorded
Pedestrian flow (along) Not recorded Not recorded
Area type Rural Rural
Number of lanes One One
Direction of flow Two-way traffic Two-way traffic
Speed limit 80 km/h 80 km/h
Lane width Wide Wide
Paved shoulder width Paved shoulder 0 to 1m Paved shoulder 1 to 2.4m
Unpaved shoulder width Unpaved shoulder > 2.4m Unpaved shoulder > 2.4m
Shoulder rumble strips No Yes
Curvature Sharpe curve Sharpe curve
Curve quality Adequate Adequate
Overtaking demand High High
Delineation Poor Adequate
Vertical alignment Undulating/rolling Undulating/rolling
Road condition Medium Good
Sidewalk provision left None None
Sidewalk provision right None None
Land use left Undeveloped areas Undeveloped areas
Land use right Undeveloped areas Undeveloped areas
Side friction Low Low
Pedestrian crossing facility No facility No facility
Pedestrian crossing quality Not applicable Not applicable

11
 Road Attribute Before After
Bicycle facility No facility No facility
Roadside severity - bicycle facility Distance to object 0 to 5m Distance to object 0 to 5m
Motorcycle facility No facility No facility
Roadside severity - motorcycle facility Distance to object 0 to 5m Distance to object 0 to 5m
Speed limit – motorcycle facility 80 km/h 80 km/h
Median type – motorcycle facility Centre line only Centre line only
Access point density Not applicable (rural area) Not applicable (rural area)
Roadside severity left Distance to object 0 to 5m Distance to object 0 to 5m
Roadside severity right Distance to object 0 to 5m Distance to object 0 to 5m
Intersection type None None
Intersection quality Not applicable Not applicable
Intersection road volume Not recorded/unknown Not recorded/unknown
Median type Centre line only Centre line only
Major upgrade cost Low Low
Roadworks No roadworks No roadworks

3.4 Comparing before and after RPS and Star Ratings

For the sections of road assessed in this study, both the road user RPS as well as each crash-type RPS were
calculated and compared. The percentage change in the RPS before and after the improvements is used to
indicate the change in risk. For example:

• if the ‘vehicle occupant RPS’ moves from 1.0 to 0.5, then risk for car occupants has decreased by
50%

• if the ‘pedestrian along RPS’ moves from 4.0 to 3.0, then risk for pedestrians walking along the road
has decreased by 25%

Alongside the RPS, it is also possible to produce Star Ratings for each road user and associated crash type.
These are also used to illustrate the effect of changes in road safety risk. However, it is noted that because
the Star Ratings are based on a range of RPS, it is possible for the RPS to improve, but the Star Rating to
remain the same. This situation indicates that there has been a reduction in risk, but that it was not large
enough to result in a change to the Star Rating.

It is usual practice for iRAP assessments to produce RPS and Star Ratings on sections of road where there is
activity for the relevant road user. For example, if a section of road does not experience pedestrian activity,
then no RPS or Star Rating is produced for that section. However, for the purposes of this study, RPS and
Star Ratings have been produced for all sections, enabling an examination of the likely impact of the black
spot treatments for all road users.

12
4 Results and Discussion
The comparison of Road Protection Scores (RPS) and Star Ratings showed that of the ten sites assessed,
four experienced an improvement to the total Star Rating and all but one showed a reduction in RPS (or risk)
for at least one of the four user types. The greatest reduction in risk was at Site 1 (FT005 Muar) where the
RPS for pedestrians reduced from 5.03 to 0.95 due to the installation of a grade separated crossing facility
6
(see Figure 2 below). The Star Rating for pedestrians at this site improved from 2 to 4-stars. Table 5 shows
the complete set of results for all sites.

Figure 2 The installation of a pedestrian overpass reduced risk for pedestrians

by 81%, from 5.03 (2-stars) to 0.95 (4-stars) at Site 1 (FT005 Muar, Johor).

Many of the countermeasure treatments used in the black spot program included the widening of paved
shoulders, the use of shoulder rumble strips, improvements to delineation and pavement condition and the
installation of safety barriers, all of which have the effect of reducing the likelihood and severity of run-off road
crashes. However, many of these treatments have limited, or no effect, on reducing the risk of head-on and
intersection collisions.

For example, the run-off road RPS for car occupants at Site 5 (FT001 Kedah) dropped 36% after the
installation of a roadside safety barrier, whilst the head-on RPS was unchanged. The run-off road RPS for car
occupants at Site 7 (FT012 Rompin) decreased by 70% as a result of improving the attributes at the side of
the road (paved shoulder, profiled edge markings and roadside safety barrier). The Star Rating for that
particular crash type improved from 1 to 2-stars, although the total Star Rating for car occupants remained at

6
Note that although the pedestrian bridge was not installed as part of the KPI 2009 program, its effect on reducing the
Pedestrian RPS has been documented and included in this study.

13
1-star due to the relatively high head-on risk. The high operating speed (110km/h) and the lack of a physical
median to separate the two opposing traffic flows contribute significantly to the head-on crash risk at this site.

Figure 3 Improvements such as pavement resurfacing, roadside safety barrier, profiled edge
markings and paved shoulder widening resulted in the run- off road RPS for car
occupants reducing from 2.71 (1-star) to 0.82 (2-star) at Site 7 (FT012 Rompin, Pahang).

Although none of the countermeasures in the black spot program cater specifically for motorised two-wheelers
(such as dedicated motorcycle lanes as recommended in the Safer Roads Investment Plan), the RPS for this
road user type, which makes up over 60% of the country’s road deaths in Malaysia, reduced at eight sites.

The lowest post-treatment motorcycle RPS of all the sites analysed was calculated at 1.11 at Site 5, FT001
Pendang Yan. However, this was not as a result of having a segregated path or motorcycle friendly safety
barrier but largely due to the low speed limit (60km/h) and the absence of any intersection. Although the Star
Rating for motorcyclists remained at 4-star, the run-off road risk reduced by 24% due to the introduction of a
roadside safety barrier. The Star Rating for run-off type crashes improved for car occupants as shown in
Figure 4.

Figure 4 The installation of a roadside safety barrier resulted in the run-off road risk for car
occupants reducing from 0.14 (4-stars) to 0.09 (5-stars) at Site 5 (FT001 Pendang/Yan,
Kedah).

At Site 3 in Manjung, Perak, the increased width of the paved shoulder, use of a profiled edge marking,
pavement resurfacing and improvements to delineation (road studs and roadside hazard markers) has
reduced the run-off road risk for car occupants by half (see Figure 5).

14
Figure 5 Shoulder sealing and improved delineation at the curve (road studs and hazard marker
posts) has reduced the run-off risk for car occupants by 52% from 1.86 (1-stars) to 0.89
(2-stars) at Site 3 (FT060 Manjung, Perak)

4.1 Further discussion

Originally, the iRAP model was developed as a network-level analysis tool, able to generate Star Ratings and
countermeasure guidance across thousands of kilometres of road. Hence, it has limitations in its ability to
analyse individual locations. Some of the low cost treatments which improved the quality of intersections such
as amendments to filter lanes, street lighting upgrades and improvements to the advanced signing and road
markings had no effect on the RPS. For example, where delineation or road surface was improved as part of
the Black Spot Program at locations where these attributes were previously considered to be adequate or
good, the RPS did not change. However, this does not mean that the risk has not been reduced, rather that it
is beyond the sensitivity of the model to measure.

Moreover, short lengths of physical separation or the relocation of utility services and street lighting may not
cover the whole 100 metre section to be rated. In order to change the road attribute (and therefore have an
effect on the RPS) the treatments must cover the entire section length, because where two rating options are
present within a 100 metre section, the higher risk item should always be recorded.

It should also be noted that actual number of deaths at a location is a function of numerous factors, including
behaviour, vehicle type, infrastructure and speed. For this reason, while the RPS and Star Ratings provide a
measure of infrastructure related risk, the actual crash experience at locations can vary from this.

15
Table 5 Changes to Road Protection Scores and Star Ratings

16
5 Conclusion
This report describes a methodology that uses iRAP Star Ratings to estimate the change in road safety risk
as a result of infrastructure improvements. The approach is especially useful where no reliable crash data
system is in place or where an assessment is required before adequate crash data has accumulated after
the road is improved.

The comparison of RPS and Star Ratings showed that of the ten sites assessed, four experienced an
improvement to the total Star Rating and all but one showed a reduction in risk for at least one of the four
user types. In summary, Star Ratings improved for:

• car occupants at one site

• motorcyclists at two sites
• bicyclists at four sites
• pedestrians at two sites.

At those locations where Star Ratings did not improve, the Road Protection Scores often did (if the RPS
goes from say 1 to 0.5, the risk has dropped by 50% even if the star rating has remained the same). For
example at Site 3 (FT060 Manjung), the works to increase the width of the paved shoulder, improve
delineation and resurface the carriageway resulted in a 38% reduction in the RPS for bicyclists, dropping
from 18.63 to 11.51, despite remaining at 1-star for this road user type.

The Safer Roads Investment Plan, or countermeasure program, for Malaysia that resulted from the initial
pilot study had recommended a program costing in the region of US$ 180 million that would be expected to
save 31,800 lives and serious injuries over 20 years, with an overall benefit cost ratio of 16:1. The top three
recommended countermeasures for immediate investigation were:

• Roadside safety – hazard removal

• Motorcycle lanes
• Intersection upgrades.

The countermeasures used in the 2009 Black Spot Program were single site treatments, ranging in cost
between US$65,000 and US$250,000 per site, which is less ambitious than the route type action as
recommended in the Safer Roads Investment Plan. As a result, seven of the ten sites remain under 4-stars
for both car occupants and motorcyclists. Although the work undertaken at the sites in this study has been
positive, further proactive improvements to safety are possible with comprehensive countermeasures such
as the installation of median barriers, motorcycle lanes and effective speed management having the potential
to provide significant returns and improve the Star Ratings for all crash types and road users.

17
6 References
Bureau of Transport Economics (Australia) Report 104, The Black Spot Program 1996-2002: An Evaluation
of the First Three Years, 2001.

D. Harwood, K. Bauer, D. Gilmore, R. Souleyrette and H. Hans (2010). “Validation of U.S. Road Assessment
Program Star Rating Protocol. Application to Safety Management of U.S. Roads” Journal Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board Pages 33-41 Volume 2147 / 2010.

I.A.Sayer (1994). Accident Black Spot Investigation, Transport Research Laboratory.

iRAP (2008). Vaccines for Roads – The new iRAP tools and their pilot application.

iRAP (2010). Star Rating Inspection Manual.

iRAP (2009). Star Rating Roads for Safety: The iRAP Methodology.

MIROS (2010). Road Facts. http://www.miros.gov.my/web/guest/road

OECD/ITF (2008). Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach.

World Health Organisation (2009). Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for Action.

18