The United States averages 40,000 traffic fatalities annually. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadside Design Guide cites run-off-the-road crashes as contributing greatly to this statistic, with about one-third of all traffic deaths [1]. This number has remained relatively constant over the past four decades, and despite a major increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has declined. However, this relatively large number of run-off-the-road crashes should remain a major concern in all roadway design. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 marks a defining moment in the history of roadside safety [ ]. Before this point, roadways were only designed for motorists who remained on the roadway, with no regard for driver error. As there was no legislation or guidelines concerning roadside design, roadways constructed prior to 1966 are littered with fixed objects directly off of the edge of pavement. Fortunately, many of these roads have reached their thirty year design lives and have become candidates for improvement. The following report examines roadside crashes on nine Atlanta urban arterial roadways. Accident type, severity, and location for all crashes on these were evaluated. It is found roadside collisions with utility poles and trees were more prone to occur at intersection locations than midblock locations. Also for the studied roadway corridors, on average, roadside collisions were more likely to result in serious injury or fatality. Based on these findings initial recommendations are offer for improving clear zone requirements.

Transportation safety is a highly contentious issue in the design of cities and communities. To enhance community livability, urban designers, architects and city planners often encourage the placement of street trees, aesthetic street lights, and other roadside features in a buffer zone between the pedestrian realm and the vehicle travelway. While such designs clearly enhance the aesthetic quality of a roadway, conventional geometric design practice regards roadside features located in the clear zone as fixed-object hazards, and strongly discourages their use. This study examines roadside safety in urban environments to better understand the nature of urban fixed-object crashes, as well as the safety impacts of livable streetscape treatments. While the prevailing assumption is that livable street treatments have a negative impact on a roadways safety performance, the existing empirical evidence indicates that such designs are much safer than more conventional roadside designs. Current safety objections to the use of livable street treatments are not based on empirical evidence, but are instead the result of a design philosophy that systematically overlooks the real-world operating behavior of road users. This study details the origin and evolution of this philosophy, termed passive safety, and subjects it to an empirical test to evaluate its applicability to urban arterial roadways. It finds that passive safety assumptions do not meaningfully explain empirical observations of crash frequency and severity. To enhance contemporary geometric design practice, this study then proceeds to more thoroughly examine the nature and characteristics of urban roadside crashes, and proposes a new design approach, termed positive design that better addresses the twin goals of safety and livability.