Recurring concern
Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
First 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 raised2
Failure to regularly cut back plant growth at road junctions
Plant growth severely restricting drivers’ view at a 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.5
-
Action
Clear vegetation at the A505 Slip End Farm junction within the central reserve safety barrier.
Stated by Hertfordshire County Council -
Action
Assess similar junctions between Baldock and Royston to identify locations requiring additional vegetation clearance.
Stated by Hertfordshire County Council -
Action
Clear vegetation at six identified junctions between Baldock and Royston beyond cyclical grass-cutting maintenance.
Stated by Hertfordshire County Council
-
Action
Revise highway safety inspectors’ remit to identify vegetation requiring corrective action on this length of road.
Stated by Hertfordshire County Council -
Action
Revise the vegetation maintenance regime so tree, shrub and plant-growth cutting is coordinated annually with grass cutting on this length of road.
Stated by Hertfordshire County Council
-
Concerns raised1
Unsafe staggered road-junction layouts
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
Undertake a scoping study to inform potential updates to design guidance for major and minor junctions and accesses, including staggered junctions.
Stated by Department for Transport
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Lincolnshire County Council is responsible for local road safety and deciding whether to install a roundabout on the local road.
Stated by Department for Transport
-
Position
Highways England found no apparent pattern of similar safety issues at this type of junction.
Stated by Department for Transport
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of signage indicating the junction
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.
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
Place give-way road markings on Bonehams Lane.
Stated by Leicestershire County Council -
Action
Place “Slow” road markings on Ullesthorpe Road to encourage drivers to reduce speed near the junction.
Stated by Leicestershire County Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Additional junction signage was considered unnecessary because existing visual cues should alert reasonably careful road users to the junction.
Stated by Leicestershire County Council
-
Concerns raised2
50 mph speed limit at the incident junction approaches
Absence of visible signs or road markings at an approaching Give Way junction
This report raised 10 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 raised1
Foreseeable displacement of the Byway 11 safety hazard to the Byway 12 connection with the A303
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.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
-
Position
A long-term solution requires multiple agencies because responsibility for the road, land, rights of way and enforcement is distributed among them.
Stated by Wiltshire Council
-
Position
Police enforcement of stopping restrictions and the no-right-turn order is the Police’s responsibility, rather than the Council’s.
Stated by Wiltshire Council -
Position
The Council cannot yet provide decision and implementation timescales because a multi-agency long-term solution is still being explored.
Stated by Wiltshire Council
-
Concerns raised2
Inadequate visibility at the road traffic junction
Absence or inadequacy of filter lanes at the road traffic junction
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
Existing junction design, signalling and gradient comply with applicable design requirements and provide adequate safety controls.
Stated by Leicester City Council
-
Position
Existing road geometry makes providing both cycle and all-vehicle lanes difficult, while removing the right-turn lane could harm traffic flow and cyclist safety.
Stated by Leicester City Council
-
Concerns raised1
Serious and fatal collision hazard at the junction involving right-turning 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.2
-
Action
Complete the Route Safety Action Plan identifying A19 junctions with poor accident records.
Stated by National Highways -
Action
Conduct and report the extended study of A19 junction improvements, including whether bridge provision could enable closure of central reserve gaps.
Stated by National Highways
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
-
Position
Speed restrictions, road layout design and potential improvement schemes are outside the council’s jurisdiction and responsibility.
Stated by Hartlepool Borough Council
-
Position
Highways England is responsible for funding, sponsoring and initiating improvements to the A19 network.
Stated by Hartlepool Borough Council -
Position
Closing the Dalton Piercy junction depends on study findings about alternative routes and whether a strong business case exists.
Stated by National Highways -
Position
Constructing any resulting scheme depends on the availability of funding.
Stated by National Highways
-
Concerns raised1
Insufficient grass-cutting frequency allowing longer grass to obscure drivers' views
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.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The established spring and autumn maintenance closure programme was considered appropriate for the A690 location.
Stated by Sunderland City Council
-
Concerns raised1
Cycle-path geometry forcing cyclists to parallel tramlines at the junction
This report raised 6 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
Conduct the junction safety review with TfL designers and obtain short- and long-term improvement options.
Stated by London Borough of Croydon
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of advance road-sign information identifying the slip road as no entry
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.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Responsibility for advance signs on local roads and roundabouts rests with Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, not the Highways Agency or A-one+.
Stated by A-one+ Integrated Highway Services
Data last updated 7 September 2026