"Middle-of-the-road" was what was frequently found in the first-ever pan-European road work zone test carried out by EuroTest. Half of the 50 road work zones were rated as "Acceptable". 18 of the test candidates were rated as "Good" whilst six were found to be "Poor". It was not necessary to rate any of the sites as "Very poor".
The only "Very good" in this test was awarded to the Austrian road work zone on the A 1 (Vienna - Salzburg) near Traun. Here, motorists are given sufficient information concerning the type of work being carried out, and about the length and duration of the road work zone. Flashing lights warn motorists in advance, signs are understandable and well-positioned. Speed is reduced on time and gradually, a constant speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour along the road work zone means that traffic is kept flowing. Traffic guiding and protection equipment is fitted with reflectors; the traffic lanes are clearly marked and are clean. Opposite-way lanes are separated by guiding/protective barriers. Entry/exit points have acceleration or deceleration lanes, respectively, and can be seen on time; however, there are no guiding humps. Motorists unlucky enough to break down find lay-bys with emergency phones, in the direction of Salzburg, however, the lay-bys are spaced too far apart.
Last in this European comparison was the road work zone on the M 30 (Valencia - Cordoba) in Spain's capital city of Madrid. The only plus points were earned by flashing lights to warn motorists in advance, understandable signs, reflectors on the traffic guiding and protection equipment as well as a guiding/protective barrier to separate opposite-way lanes – too few, however, to make this road work zone a safe road work zone.
A glance at the individual test categories highlights the weak points. Anyone driving through a road work zone on a European motorway is frequently left in the dark about what is actually happening. The reason for the work and the duration are often not disclosed, nor the length of the road work zone, not to mention the remaining length when driving along the road work zone. For instance, the poorest results were recorded in the "Information" category. Although this is annoying, it is not automatically dangerous. In contrast to the "Traffic routing" category where the results were also rather dismal: Excessively acute lane tapering puts pressure on motorists. Fragile mini guiding beacons to separate opposite-way lanes or work areas do not provide real protection if a car gets out of control. Entry/exit points without acceleration or deceleration lanes hinder the flow of traffic as do breakdowns which leave vehicles standing in the middle of the road work zone because no lay-by is provided. All of this is dangerous.
On the other hand, the test team travelling through eleven European countries were by and large satisfied with road work zone signs, lane markings and orientation at night, even though there is still room for improvement here. The condition and cleanness of the road surfaces were found to be in order.
The categories in detail:
Signs / road markings Ratings: 10 times Very good, 24 times Good, 15 times Acceptable, 1 Poor
Very different results were recorded here in the test field. Road work zones in Germany and Belgium fared best here, while Spain came last in this category. The winner in this category with the highest marks was the German road work zone on the A 7 near Göttingen.
The main points of criticism: Signs positioned too close to traffic measures, signs indicating speed limits and overtaking prohibition were not repeated several times, speed limits and prohibitions are not lifted immediately at the end of the road work zone and finally, no flashing lights to warn motorists in advance.
Positive: Electronic mould bridges warn motorists of the road work zone in advance. These advance warning signs are too close to the work zones in Spain, Italy, Croatia and Great Britain. Signs announcing speed reduction or tapering of lanes were often missing. In Great Britain, the space between signs was found to differ significantly from what is customary in other countries and this was the reason why Great Britain was among the poorest in this category.
Traffic routing Ratings: 4 times Very good, 10 times Good, 27 times Acceptable, 6 times Poor, 3 times Very poor
Ahead of the field in this category are road work zones in Austria, Switzerland and Great Britain, however, good traffic routing at the British road work zones is only applicable during the day, because this often changes significantly at night (refer to the category titled "Orientation at night"). Croatia came last in this category. The best road work zone in this category was found on the A 1 near Traun in Austria.
The testers were particularly dissatisfied with the layout of lane tapering and the separation of opposite-way lanes and of the work zone. The same points of criticism were made in all the countries: Guiding humps on lanes of exit/entry points were either too short or were missing altogether. Special marks, however, were awarded to guiding beacons with arrows which offer particularly good visual guidance for motorists. Equipment of this kind is used in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and sometimes in Germany.
The layout of lane tapering is poorest in Italy and Spain where tapering was at times so acute that this led to an abrupt reduction in speed. The taper area of the road work zone on the A 15 near Pontrémoli was particularly critical since this also merged with an entry point.
The separation of opposite-way lanes and/or the work zone is also very poor not only in Italy, but also in Spain, Great Britain and Croatia. This is due to insufficient protective barriers and in the event of a collision, the small beacons used are not strong enough to prevent a vehicle from breaking through.
Only seven of the 50 road work zones tested had lay-bys with emergency phones. The following road work zones fulfilled the test criteria: on the A 1 near St Georg, the A 1 near Traun, and on the A 1 near Amstetten in Austria, on the A 2 near Zofingen and the A 1 near Rorschach in Switzerland, on the A 13 near Berlin (South) in Germany and on the A 7 near Valencia in Spain.
Points of entry/exit along the road work zone were frequently criticised by the test team. Deceleration and acceleration lanes were seldom provided and when provided, these were sometimes too short. Points of entry with stop signs are particularly critical as they hinder dynamic entry.
Road surface Ratings: 29 times Very good, 16 times Good, 2 times Acceptable, 2 times Poor, 1 Very poor
The rating in this category is very harmonious. Almost all the countries were rated as Very good or Good. Leading the field here are the Netherlands and France with Slovenia bringing up the rear. The main reason for the poor result for this the only Slovenian road work zone tested was the sudden change in road surface slope in the tapering of lanes, as well as the heavy dirt on the road surface.
Orientation at night Ratings: 7 times Very good, 24 times Good, 14 times Acceptable, 5 times Poor
Great Britain, the Netherlands and Slovenia lead the field in this category. Road work zones in Great Britain, however, have one special feature: These zones are reorganized at night so that construction work can be carried out during times of low traffic. This results in a completely different traffic situation. However, this changed work situation was not evaluated.
The road work zones in the Netherlands are fitted with stationary lighting. Furthermore, the original road markings are removed completely here and this means that the new road markings are much more clearly visible at night - a fact that was particularly welcomed by the test team.
A poor rating was awarded to taper areas, particularly those without lighting, for example, on Germany's A 9 near Hermsdorf, and also when reflectors were missing on guiding equipment.
Information Ratings: 7 times Very good, 6 times Good, 6 times Acceptable, 7 times Poor, 24 times Very poor
This was the category with the poorest results, with many work zone areas failing to achieve more than "Poor". In Italy, Croatia, Belgium and Spain no information at all was provided about the road works. In Germany and Austria, on the other hand, motorists are informed in advance of the reason, duration and length of the road work zone. The remaining length is sometimes displayed along the road work zone. In the case of the test winner on the A1 near Traun, these signs are attractively designed with smilies. In the other countries, information was often provided at the beginning of the road work zone, even though this information was not always complete, and information about the remaining length within the road work zone was frequently omitted.
EuroTests - EuroTest 2005
A glance at the individual test categories highlights the weak points. Anyone driving through a road work zone on a European motorway is frequently left in the dark about what is actually happening. The reason for the work and the duration are often not disclosed, nor the length of the road work zone, not to mention the remaining length when driving along the road work zone. For instance, the poorest results were recorded in the "Information" category. Although this is annoying, it is not automatically dangerous. In contrast to the "Traffic routing" category where the results were also rather dismal: Excessively acute lane tapering puts pressure on motorists. Fragile mini guiding beacons to separate opposite-way lanes or work areas do not provide real protection if a car gets out of control. Entry/exit points without acceleration or deceleration lanes hinder the flow of traffic as do breakdowns which leave vehicles standing in the middle of the road work zone because no lay-by is provided. All of this is dangerous. 
The testers were particularly dissatisfied with the layout of lane tapering and the separation of opposite-way lanes and of the work zone. The same points of criticism were made in all the countries: Guiding humps on lanes of exit/entry points were either too short or were missing altogether. Special marks, however, were awarded to guiding beacons with arrows which offer particularly good visual guidance for motorists. Equipment of this kind is used in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and sometimes in Germany. 
This was the category with the poorest results, with many work zone areas failing to achieve more than "Poor". In Italy, Croatia, Belgium and Spain no information at all was provided about the road works. In Germany and Austria, on the other hand, motorists are informed in advance of the reason, duration and length of the road work zone. The remaining length is sometimes displayed along the road work zone. In the case of the test winner on the A1 near Traun, these signs are attractively designed with smilies. In the other countries, information was often provided at the beginning of the road work zone, even though this information was not always complete, and information about the remaining length within the road work zone was frequently omitted.