First reported 2 Dec 2013•Latest report 11 Dec 2025
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures or hazards in road-junction layouts and dedicated safety controls where recurring collisions or serious collision risk indicate that the junction is not reliably made safe, including layout, signage, markings, speed or other junction-specific mitigation measures.
Not included
Excludes generic road-safety, highway-maintenance or collision concerns without a material road-junction safety condition.
Excludes failures limited to a specific road-marking, signage or inspection process where junction safety is not the shared unsafe condition.
Excludes pedestrian-crossing, railway, vehicle-design and non-junction hazards unless the assertion directly concerns safety of the road junction.
Excludes a single isolated collision or factual hazard where no continuing deficiency or recurring collision risk is identified.
Reports
55
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
85
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2013–2025
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
126
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
National Highways8
Department for Transport6
Office of the Chief Coroner4
Transport for London4
Lincolnshire County Council3
Recipient name withheld3
A-One+2
Apple (UK) Limited2
Birmingham City Council2
Google UK Limited2
Leicester City Council2
Nottinghamshire County Council2
Slough Borough Council2
TomTom2
Wiltshire Council2
English unitary authority16
English county council14
English metropolitan district council8
National road infrastructure body8
Ministerial department6
Type not available5
Company4
Coronial office4
Police force4
Public transport authority4
London borough council3
Welsh county borough council3
Private limited company2
Sub-organisation2
Executive non-departmental public body1
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
North Wales (East and Central)
Concerns raised2
Failure to address obstructive and deteriorated railings at the junction
Failure to set a speed limit that accounts for the dangerous junction at Waterloo Hill
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Replace the privately owned junction railings with a more suitable boundary treatment at Council expense.
Stated by Conwy County Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
Action
Complete a route speed-limit review for the A548 between Llanfair TH and Llangernyw under national guidance.
Stated by Conwy County Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
Action
Advertise the proposed A548 40mph speed-limit reduction as a Traffic Regulation Order and undertake the required consultation and legal process.
Stated by Conwy County Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
Birmingham and Solihull
Concerns raised1
Failure of the junction layout, signage and road markings to mitigate incident risk at the stop junction
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Implement the Fatal Collision Response Protocol to assess site conditions and identify locally appropriate safety interventions.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2025.
Action
Implement vertical traffic-calming measures and additional junction warning signage within six months.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 August 2025.
Action
Design and assess traffic-management measures to redirect vehicles away from the junction before proceeding to implementation.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 August 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Meaningful Safe System redesign is not feasible because it would require significant demolition of the surrounding built environment.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Dorset
Concerns raised2
Hazardous road layout at Loscombe Crossroads
Continuing risk of road traffic collisions at Loscombe Crossroads
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Conduct a feasibility study for introducing average speed cameras on the A30 between Yeovil and Sherborne, collaborating with relevant stakeholders including Dorset Police.
Stated by Dorset CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 19 May 2025.
Action
Reduce the speed limit at the relevant road site from 70mph to 60mph.
Stated by Dorset CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 May 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Dorset Council, as the traffic authority, is responsible for decisions about road design, speed limits, traffic calming and road network management.
Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Northamptonshire
Concerns raised1
Hazardous difficulty manoeuvring at the junction of St Johns Road, Tiffield and the A43 Northamptonshire
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Action
Carry out planned summer 2025 minor surfacing works, including refreshed eastbound road markings and reflective road studs through the junction.
Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 February 2025.
Action
Investigate including vegetation clearance in the summer 2025 works to improve visibility at the junction.
Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 February 2025.
Action
Develop and construct the 2026 A43 renewals scheme, including carriageway resurfacing, line-marking repainting and replacement reflective road studs through to St John’s Road junction.
Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 February 2025.
Action
Investigate potential junction improvements, such as signage, as part of the A43 renewals scheme scoping.
Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 February 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
The junction does not rank highly as a safety problem location, so detailed investigations for a potential safety improvement scheme have not been prioritised.
Stated by National HighwaysDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Milton Keynes
Concerns raised4
Inadequate positioning and visibility of No Entry signage for wrong-way slip-road entry
Frequent wrong-way driving down the slip road into oncoming traffic
Slip-road geometry allowing wrong-way vehicles to enter and build up considerable speed
Failure to maintain adequate visibility of road-surface No Entry markings at the slip-road junction
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.11
Action
Install temporary large No Entry signs on A-frames at both sides of the A5 off-slip exit.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Complete a full safety review of the junction against the current Wrong Way Driving: Mitigation Toolkit.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Continue developing enhanced A5 off-slip mitigation options and establish which measures will be progressed, including improved signage and road markings.
Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Undertake further work to assess junction capacity and whether the A5 off-slip bell-mouth width can be reduced with hatched markings.
Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Inspect the junction and assess signage and road markings for safety defects.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Review the junction situation later as part of the planned work programme.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Review navigation instructions near the junction by simulating driver-speed scenarios and assessing instruction timing.
Stated by TomTom International B.V.Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Implement safeguards that time verbal navigation commands closer to the exit and after drivers pass the off-slip road.
Stated by TomTom International B.V.Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Investigate and develop improvements to the timing of Google Maps audio guidance.
Stated by Google UK LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Add special voice guidance directing westbound drivers to continue straight at the overpass and turn right onto the A5 toward Milton Keynes and Bletchley.
Stated by Apple (UK) LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Reinspect the site after the incident and investigate whether an immediate safety hazard exists.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
The junction already has all standard wrong-way-driving mitigation measures required by the current toolkit.
Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Existing signage and road markings appeared adequate under applicable regulations, although illumination might improve the no-entry signage.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The council has no powers to improve the junction mouth, signage or road markings because these are outside its highway authority functions.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
National Highways is responsible for the slip road junction, its signage and road markings, so it must undertake related improvements.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Milton Keynes
Concerns raised1
Failure of commonly used satnav applications to provide safe verbal directions at the junction
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.7
Action
Review navigation instructions and simulate speed scenarios near the junction.
Stated by TomTom International B.V.Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 August 2024.
Action
Implement safeguards that time verbal commands closer to the exit and after the off-slip road.
Stated by TomTom International B.V.Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 August 2024.
Action
Deploy temporary ‘Do not follow Sat Nav’ and customer-information signs at the junction.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 August 2024.
Action
Investigate Sat Nav routing and liaise with Google Maps, Apple Maps and WAZE regarding potentially confusing audible instructions.
Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 August 2024.
Action
Liaised with National Highways and reviewed dashcam footage of the junction to inform investigation of Google Maps audio guidance.
Stated by Google UK LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 August 2024.
Action
Investigate and develop improvements to the timing of Google Maps audio guidance.
Stated by Google UK LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 August 2024.
Action
Add special voice guidance instructing drivers to continue straight at the overpass and turn right onto the A5 toward Milton Keynes, Bletchley.
Stated by Apple (UK) LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 August 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
It is not clear whether Google Maps was involved in the incidents described in the reports.
Stated by Google UK LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Maps had no data or routing error that contributed to the deaths.
Stated by Apple (UK) LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Lincolnshire
Concerns raised1
Failure of junction signage to require stopping where visibility of the major road is restricted
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Regularly assess vegetation at the junction approaches and take enforcement action to maintain maximum visibility and unobstructed visibility splays.
Stated by Lincolnshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Existing Give Way signage will not be changed because junction visibility substantially exceeds the distance at which a Stop sign might be considered.
Stated by Lincolnshire County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Concerns raised1
Visibility deficiencies between downhill traffic and cars exiting the roundabout
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised5
Failure to provide adequate speed control within the junction series
Inadequate junction capacity for traffic volume
Failure to assess junction improvements across the junction series
Delays in implementing junction safety improvements
Insufficient junction safety improvements
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Secure funding to bring forward signal-control improvements at the West Rainton and Pittington Lane junctions.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 March 2023.
Action
Implement signal control at the West Rainton and Pittington Lane junctions.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 March 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
A lower speed limit would not be credible or appropriate and could increase danger because a significant proportion of motorists might ignore it.
Stated by Durham County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
No further accident investigation and prevention intervention was warranted because accident frequency remained unchanged and traffic signals were being developed.
Stated by Durham County CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
Birmingham and Solihull
Concerns raised1
Failure to maintain the kerb at the junction to prevent it appearing to be an official crossing point
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Amend the kerb height at the footpath outside 214 Alcester Road South at the Livingstone Road junction.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 December 2022.
Action
Review network kerb-defect information and intervention criteria to identify similar locations and incorporate necessary maintenance processes.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 December 2022.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures or hazards in road-junction layouts and dedicated safety controls where recurring collisions or serious collision risk indicate that the junction is not reliably made safe, including layout, signage, markings, speed or other junction-specific mitigation measures.
