PURPOSES : The "Super-Bus Rapid Transit" (S-BRT) standard guidelines recommend installing physical facilities to separate bus lanes, so as to remove possible conflicts with other traffic when using an existing road as an S-BRT route. Based on a collision simulation, we reviewed the protective performance and installation method of a low-profile barrier, i.e., one that does not occupy much of the width of the road as a physical facility and does not obstruct the driver's vision. METHODS : The LS-DYNA collision analysis software was used to model the low-profile barrier, and a small car collision simulation was performed with two different installation methods and by changing the collision speeds of the vehicle. The installation methods were divided into a fixed installation method based on on-site construction and a precast method, and collision speeds of 80 and 100 km/h were applied. The weight of the crash vehicle was 1.3 tons, and the segment lengths of the low-profile barriers were 2.5 and 4.0 m, respectively. The lowprofile barriers were modeled as precast concrete blocks, and the collision simulation for a fixed concrete barrier was performed by fixing the nodes at the bottom of the low-profile barrier. The low-profile barrier comprised a square cross-section reinforced concrete structure, and the segments were connected by connecting steel pipes with varying diameters to wire ropes. RESULTS : From comparing and analyzing the small car collision simulations for the changes in collision speeds and installation methods of the low-profile barrier, a significant difference was found in the theoretical head impact velocity (THIV) and acceleration severity index(ASI) for the 2.5-m barrier at a collision speed of 80 km/h. However, the differences in the installation method were not significant for the 4.0-m barrier. The occupant safety index with a collision speed of 80 km/h was calculated to be below the limit regardless of the installation method, and the length of the segment satisfied the occupant protection performance. At a collision speed of 100 km/h, when the segment length of the 2.5-m barrier was fixed, the THIV value exceeded the limit value; thus, the occupant protection performance was not satisfied, and the occupant safety index differed depending on the installation method. The maximum rotation angle of the vehicle, which reflects the behavior of the vehicle after the collision, also varied depending on the installation method, and was generally small in the case of precast concrete. CONCLUSIONS : Low-profile barriers can be installed using a fixed or precast method, but as a result of the simulation, the precast movable barrier shows better results in terms of passenger safety. Therefore, it would be advantageous to secure protection performance by installing a low-profile barrier with the precast method for increased safety in high-speed vehicle collisions.