Recurring concern
Unsafe road design and layout
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 2 Dec 2013•Latest report 2 Feb 2026
What this concern includes
Includes deficiencies in the design, geometry, layout or standards compliance of public roads where the road arrangement itself is identified as unsafe or as failing applicable design or regulatory requirements, including the A285 and comparable road-layout concerns.
Not included
- Excludes deficiencies limited to a specific dedicated road control, such as signage, markings, lighting, drainage, barriers, sight distance, road width or speed limits, where road design and layout is not the shared unsafe condition.
- Excludes highway inspection, hazard reporting, maintenance or remedial-action process failures unless the road design or layout itself is identified as unsafe.
- Excludes vehicle design, driver competence and non-road premises or transport hazards.
- Excludes isolated collisions or road-user behaviour where no continuing unsafe road-design or layout condition is identified.
- Reports
- 34
- Individual concerns
- 35
- Date range
- 2013–2026
- Stated actions
- 64
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
Hazardous road layout requiring right-turning vehicles to cross multiple traffic-control areas
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
Investigate road markings, signing and carriageway layout on the A5 within National Highways’ jurisdiction to identify potential overtaking mitigation measures.
Stated by National Highways -
Action
Install a no-right-turn sign at the Moss Farm shop car-park exit.
Stated by Moss Farm shop
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
-
Position
Moss Farm Shop is responsible for controlling traffic and providing signage within its private premises.
Stated by National Highways
-
Position
Enforcement of the road layout and guidance to road users is outside the respondent’s authority.
Stated by Moss Farm shop -
Position
Enforcement of signed road rules and road markings is assigned to the highways department and police.
Stated by Moss Farm shop -
Position
National Highways is responsible for deciding appropriate road markings and signing at the specific site on its strategic road network.
Stated by Department for Transport
-
Concerns raised1
Failure of the junction layout, signage and road markings to mitigate incident risk at the stop 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.3
-
Action
Implement the Fatal Collision Response Protocol to assess site conditions and identify locally appropriate safety interventions.
Stated by Birmingham City Council -
Action
Implement vertical traffic-calming measures and additional junction warning signage within six months.
Stated by Birmingham City Council -
Action
Design and assess traffic-management measures to redirect vehicles away from the junction before proceeding to implementation.
Stated by Birmingham City Council
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 Council
-
Concerns raised1
Hazardous road layout at Loscombe Crossroads
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
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 Transport
-
Concerns raised1
Hazardous difficulty manoeuvring at the junction of St Johns Road, Tiffield and the A43 Northamptonshire
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
Carry out planned summer 2025 minor surfacing works, including refreshed eastbound road markings and reflective road studs through the junction.
Stated by National Highways -
Action
Investigate including vegetation clearance in the summer 2025 works to improve visibility at the junction.
Stated by National Highways -
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 Highways
-
Action
Investigate potential junction improvements, such as signage, as part of the A43 renewals scheme scoping.
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 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 Highways
-
Concerns raised1
Slip-road geometry allowing wrong-way vehicles to enter and build up considerable speed
This report raised 4 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.4
-
Action
Complete a full safety review of the junction against the current Wrong Way Driving: Mitigation Toolkit.
Stated by National Highways -
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 Highways -
Action
Reinspect the site after the incident and investigate whether an immediate safety hazard exists.
Stated by Milton Keynes City Council
-
Action
Review the junction situation later as part of the planned work programme.
Stated by Milton Keynes City Council
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to make the Tollard Green junction and bend sufficiently distinguishable to approaching motorists
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.3
-
Action
Assess the site and review existing traffic-sign arrangements through experienced road-safety professionals.
Stated by Wiltshire Council -
Action
Add “SLOW” road markings to the Council’s road-marking programme for delivery in the coming months.
Stated by Wiltshire Council -
Action
Continue monitoring the hedgerow situation alongside the highway and landowner responsibilities.
Stated by Wiltshire Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Existing road signs accurately represent the layout and hazards, so no further amendments are proposed.
Stated by Wiltshire Council
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to maintain consistent motorway configurations
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 raised1
Failure of the existing road layout to meet correct regulations and standards
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
Extend the northern footway, install dropped kerbs, and modify the kerb line to create a safer 90-degree pedestrian crossing point.
Stated by Kirklees Borough Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Existing edge and centre-line markings comply with applicable requirements and direct drivers away from the kerb transition.
Stated by Kirklees Borough Council
-
Concerns raised1
Hazardous crossing approach following a bend with a higher preceding speed limit
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
Renew the 30mph signs so the central-reservation and farside signs match the nearside sign size.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Resurface the Gallows Corner roundabout and A12 approaches, renewing white lines, markings, bus-stop cage lining and red surfacing.
Stated by Transport for London
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
-
Position
The 30 mph speed limit and its location relative to the pedestrian crossing comply with relevant highway regulations.
Stated by Transport for London
-
Position
Highway safety actions at the location fall outside Havering Council’s authority because Transport for London is the highway authority.
Stated by London Borough of Havering -
Position
Transport for London must investigate and determine any action concerning the highway network at the location.
Stated by London Borough of Havering -
Position
No road bend causing driver sightline problems was apparent near the crossing during inspection.
Stated by London Borough of Havering
-
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
Data last updated 7 September 2026