Safety audits do not currently consider the level of service and other non-safety matters affecting walkability for pedestrians. They also fail to consider similar aspects for cyclists and equestrian riders. In the United Kingdom an alternative procedure was developed called ‘non-motorised user audit’, which provides a process for ensuring the design team fully considers and documents the needs of all non-motorised users related to the project. The project is then audited against these needs at appropriate stages. In 2007, Land Transport NZ adapted the UK procedures for New Zealand use.
Note that, whilst these guidelines are intended for designers, many of the principles included can be usefully incorporated by safety auditors assessing provision for walking in projects.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles aim to assist in crime prevention and raise the perception of safety in a public area.
Matters relating to personal safety and security are often identified in the peer review and safety audit process, however it is preferable that designers eliminate such issues initially, and there are instances where a specific CPTED audit should be considered.
These may include:
A trained CPTED expert should be engaged to undertake this type of audit.
Operational matters are generally covered by the peer review and safety audit processes; however, there are instances where a specific operational audit should be considered. These may include:
An example of an audit/review process that considers operational/functional matters is the Christchurch City Council Safety Audit and Network Functionality (SANF) review, currently used for cycleway projects.