This paper compares three methods for selecting highway-infrastructure countermeasures to reduce crash frequency and severity. The three methods compared are the usRAP Tools software, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) systemic safety tool, and road safety audits. These methods are less dependent on the availability site-specific crash data than traditional methods based on identification of high-crash locations. Each of the methods is applied to the same network of selected county roads in Kentucky. The paper shows that the usRAP Tools software provides the most robust and quantitative of the methods and produces a recommended safer roads investment program for the county road network based on benefit-cost analysis. The FHWA systemic safety tool requires less roadway data than the usRAP Tools software and provides great flexibility for users to adapt to specific roadway networks and specific data availability situations. However, this flexibility carries with it the risk that users may not fully appreciate the importance of considering and weighting all relevant factors. Road safety audits are effective at identifying safety-related features that are missing or in poor condition, but have the potential to miss the opportunity to make cost-effective improvements to existing infrastructure that is in good condition, but may not fully serve traffic demands.