Recurring concern
Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 15 Nov 2013•Latest report 26 Mar 2026
What this concern includes
Includes recurring collision-risk assertions concerning hazardous road bends or comparable bend locations, including failures or hazards involving road layout, visibility, speed control, signage, roadside containment or other dedicated controls where they contribute to the bend-related collision risk.
Not included
- Excludes isolated collisions or repeated incidents where no continuing hazardous bend or related road-safety condition is identified.
- Excludes road hazards unrelated to bends, such as general road-surface, lighting, pedestrian-crossing or junction risks unless the assertion materially concerns a hazardous bend.
- Excludes generic speeding, visibility or signage concerns where no hazardous bend or bend-related collision risk is identified.
- Excludes the specific underlying cause, outcome or individual collision when it is not part of a continuing safety condition at a hazardous bend.
- Reports
- 22
- Individual concerns
- 25
- Date range
- 2013–2026
- Stated actions
- 37
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
Lack of advance warning signage for a severe bend
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
Review the site and consider options, including advance warning measures, to improve bend visibility and driver awareness.
Stated by Northumberland County Council -
Action
Prioritise identified road-safety improvements for implementation within Quarter 2 of the 2026–2027 financial year.
Stated by Northumberland County Council
-
Concerns raised1
Risk of road traffic collisions from vehicles turning right across the carriageway from the layby
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
Recommendations concerning the A4059 should be addressed to RCTCBC, which is responsible as the local highway authority.
Stated by Welsh Government
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of roadside barrier or fence preventing vehicles entering the ditch
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.2
-
Action
Complete a site-specific assessment of whether a road restraint system should be provided at the collision site.
Stated by Gwynedd Council -
Action
Review future options for installing a road restraint system as maintenance or wider highway improvements affect the relevant considerations.
Stated by Gwynedd Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
-
Position
Implemented signage and passive roadside measures may be sufficient to negate the need for a road restraint system.
Stated by Gwynedd Council
-
Position
Road restraint installation is limited by substantial funding, resource, physical, engineering, legal, environmental, land ownership and maintenance constraints.
Stated by Gwynedd Council -
Position
Stock fencing is not intended or designed as highway safety infrastructure and would not withstand a vehicle collision at speed.
Stated by the Trustees of the Ymddiriedolaeth Clough Williams-Ellis Foundation -
Position
Safety works on or adjacent to the public highway are the responsibility of the relevant authority, not the adjoining landowner.
Stated by the Trustees of the Ymddiriedolaeth Clough Williams-Ellis Foundation
-
Concerns raised1
Recurring collision hazard from ice on a steep, curved road section
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.5
-
Action
Conduct joint site visits with Dorset Police after every fatal collision, assess highway-condition factors, and take necessary mitigating action.
Stated by Dorset Council -
Action
Dig out existing and additional drainage ditches to assist water flow at the identified location.
Stated by Dorset Council -
Action
Resurface the road and adjust its camber so naturally occurring surface water enters the existing drainage system efficiently.
Stated by Dorset Council
-
Action
Review the B3091 between Sturminster Newton and Shaftesbury within three months to consider additional proportionate improvements.
Stated by Dorset Council -
Action
Review winter-service policy measures concerning water on the highway during precautionary salting operations, completing the review by September 2024.
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
Resources and practicability constrain winter service, so ice and snow cannot be prevented or cleared across all network routes at all times.
Stated by Dorset Council
-
Concerns raised1
Potentially inappropriate speed limit at the bend
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.1
-
Action
Complete a speed-limit review using speed surveys and injury-collision records to assess whether the A483 location requires a speed-limit change.
Stated by National Highways
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The existing 60mph speed limit is considered appropriate because surveys found most drivers complied and injury collisions did not indicate change was needed.
Stated by National Highways
-
Concerns raised2
Lack of warning signs at a reduced-visibility bend
Lack of double white hazard warning lines at a reduced-visibility bend
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
Erect bend warning signs on both approaches to the bend.
Stated by Durham County Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Double white hazard lines will not be installed because the road does not meet the intervention criteria and the accident did not involve overtaking.
Stated by Durham County Council
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of a continuous white line at the Melrose Way bend to prevent overtaking
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.4
-
Action
Review the Road Safety Assessment for the A34 Melrose Way.
Stated by Cheshire East Council -
Action
Replace the existing hazard centreline marking with a hatched hazard centreline.
Stated by Cheshire East Council -
Action
Complete a road safety assessment of A34 Melrose Way, considering options in consultation with Cheshire Constabulary.
Stated by The Cheshire East Highways Team
-
Action
Replace the existing centre line with a hatched hazard centreline and red surfacing to discourage overtaking.
Stated by The Cheshire East Highways Team
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Solid double white lines cannot be installed because Melrose Way does not meet Department for Transport criteria.
Stated by The Cheshire East Highways Team
-
Concerns raised1
Insufficient black and white chevron signage warning drivers of the sharp bend
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.5
-
Action
Install a larger yellow-bordered chevron to provide additional warning of the bend to southbound motorists.
Stated by West Sussex County Council -
Action
Discuss installing a banner-type sign over the Seaford College gateway to interrupt the straight-on view for southbound drivers.
Stated by West Sussex County Council -
Action
Appraise safe siting and trigger speed for a vehicle-activated flashing bend-warning sign for southbound traffic.
Stated by West Sussex County Council
-
Action
Install a vehicle-activated flashing bend-warning sign for southbound traffic north of the bend.
Stated by West Sussex County Council -
Action
Provide an additional bend-warning sign with a “Reduce speed now” supplementary plate.
Stated by West Sussex County Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
The chevron was removed during the 2010/11 road safety scheme, rather than being absent without explanation.
Stated by West Sussex County Council
-
Position
Installing a banner sign over the gateway is the responsibility of Seaford College, not the authority.
Stated by West Sussex County Council
-
Concerns raised2
Failure to implement maximum-speed road signs for the bend
Failure to implement slow painted markings on both approaches to the bend
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
Lack of an advance warning sign for the approaching left bend
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.
Data last updated 7 September 2026