Recurring concern
Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 2 Dec 2013•Latest report 11 Dec 2025
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
- Individual concerns
- 85
- Date range
- 2013–2025
- Stated actions
- 126
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
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.
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.
-
Concerns raised1
Unsafe junction for cars crossing the carriageway to the central reservation to carry out a turn manoeuvre
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Closing the central-reservation gaps is not justified at present because collision numbers are relatively low and closure could create further safety and access problems.
Stated by Liverpool City Council
-
Position
Existing engineering measures, signage, road markings and physical infrastructure did not contribute to the fatal collision.
Stated by Liverpool City Council
-
Concerns raised1
Failure of the filter lane and junction design to prevent wrong-side entry into Thetford Road
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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
Review the junction design, layout and potential engineering solutions to reduce opportunities for drivers to turn right before the centre island.
Stated by Suffolk County Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The junction is not a high collision cluster, and proposed physical alterations are expected to provide low accident reduction and poor value for money.
Stated by Suffolk County Council
-
Concerns raised2
Failure of cycle-lane layout to ensure cyclists are visible to left-turning motor vehicles
Failure of Dover Road layout to safely separate cyclists from motor vehicles
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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
Review all cycle lanes as part of the updated borough cycling strategy.
Stated by Slough Borough Council -
Action
Prepare comprehensive cycling design standards based on proven best practice.
Stated by Slough Borough Council -
Action
Continue working with SEGRO representatives to promote vehicle priority at nearside cycle lanes and discourage cyclists from undertaking at junctions.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Segregating cyclists or reallocating road space is not feasible without disproportionate financial investment given the presenting problem and competing priorities.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
-
Position
Two cycling incidents do not constitute a collision cluster or demonstrate a systemic junction problem warranting concern.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
-
Concerns raised1
Road junction posing a recurring collision hazard
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 concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised2
Lack of parking restrictions reducing sightlines at junctions
Lack of road markings indicating right of way at junctions
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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
Review the junction location and identify measures to restrict parking near the crossing.
Stated by Duchy of Cornwall -
Action
Submit proposals to Dorset Council Highways Department for approval of parking restrictions.
Stated by Duchy of Cornwall -
Action
Install two additional parking bollards on each approach, set back from the junction, subject to approval.
Stated by Duchy of Cornwall
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
No formal parking restriction is considered necessary because drivers must park safely and comply with the Highway Code.
Stated by Duchy of Cornwall
-
Position
Restricted road markings and signage are considered appropriate because road users should rely on personal responsibility and direct engagement.
Stated by Duchy of Cornwall
-
Concerns raised3
Unsafe layout or line of sight on the approach to the junction
Inadequate signs at and before the junction
Injury collision rate at the junction
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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
Separate the secondary traffic signal heads and add guidance markings to direct drivers safely through the junction.
Stated by Slough Borough Council -
Action
Complete an independent junction safety review, including collision-data assessment, and provide a report with proposals for further improvements.
Stated by Slough Borough Council -
Action
Complete the programme of junction sign improvements at and before the junction.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
-
Action
Refresh the approach road markings and renew the yellow box junction marking.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
-
Concerns raised1
Pedestrian collision hazard near the junction
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 concernsEach 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.6
-
Action
Implement segregated cycle lanes, pedestrian islands and turn restrictions through the junction upgrade.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Complete a collision study examining recent recorded collision history to inform further cycling and walking improvements.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Reintroduce the Burdett Road right turn into Mile End Road and ban the corresponding Mile End Road left turn.
Stated by Transport for London
-
Action
Reintroduce pedestrian guard railing on the junction’s north-west corner to direct pedestrians to formal crossings.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Investigate A11 approach measures, including bus-stop changes and relocating the Mile End station crossing, to reduce queuing and blocking back.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Introduce a 20mph speed limit on the A11 corridor between Bow and Aldgate through the junction.
Stated by Transport for London
-
Concerns raised1
Dangerous and confusing layout of the A16/B1166 junction
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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
Continue monitoring funding opportunities for constructing the proposed roundabout.
Stated by Lincolnshire County Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Lack of available funding prevents delivery of the proposed roundabout and makes further road safety improvements difficult.
Stated by Lincolnshire County Council
-
Position
Local highway authorities, not the Department, are responsible for deciding and implementing site-specific traffic management measures.
Stated by Department for Transport
-
Concerns raised2
Lack of barriers separating the road and pavement on the northern approach to the junction
Lack of safe cyclist accommodation 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 concernsEach 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
Carry out the wider A354 route study and consider the junction crossing, cyclist stop-line and corridor safety recommendations within it.
Stated by Dorset Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Pedestrian crossings and cyclists’ advanced stop lines cannot yet be committed to because the wider route study and available funding remain uncertain.
Stated by Dorset Council
-
Concerns raised1
Inadequate protection for cyclists approaching the junction
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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
Consider providing an improved cycle feeder lane within the revised junction design, accounting for western-arm constraints.
Stated by Transport for London
Data last updated 7 September 2026