Recurring concern

Unsafe road design and layout

First to latest report 2 Dec 2013 — 2 Feb 2026

Reports that mention this concern
34
Times this concern has been raised
35
Stated actions linked to this concern
64

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.

What is 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 and published responses 34 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. South London

    AI-generated summary

    Roger William Maurice De Klerk · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 12 November 2013, Roger William Maurice De Klerk was cycling along Addiscombe Road when his bicycle wheels contacted tramlines, causing him to fall into the path of a bus. The bus collided with him and his bicycle. Concerns included the danger posed by tramlines to cyclists, confusing cycle-lane design and signage, and the intended route across tactile paving and pedestrian areas.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Confusing bicycle-lane design and appearance at the junction

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The design and appearance of the bicycle lane at the junction of Addiscombe Road and Cherry Orchard Road may cause confusion for cyclists who are apparently required to go on to the pavement before the junction in order to cross it safely. The cycle path continues into the junction so that cyclists turning left will be forced to parallel with the lines, rather than crossing at 90 degrees, which is safer. ”

    Source location

    Roger William Maurice De Klerk · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct the junction safety review with TfL designers and obtain short- and long-term improvement options.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the findings of your Coroner’s inquest, the council has agreed to carry out a detailed review of the junction of Addiscombe Road / Cherry Orchard Road with the aim of finding any improvements that will assist cyclist and improve road safety at this site. To this end, the council is requesting TfL’s design team (with expertise employed on TfL’s cycling better junction review and central London cycle Superhighway design) to carry out this review and provide the council with a range of workable options. These will include both short term options that can be implemented quickly, and more extensive improvement. We are entering into discussions with TfL regarding cycling Quietway funding with a view to making such more extensive improvement by 2016.”

    Source location

    2014-0448-Response-De-Klerk
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 October 2014

    Open published response

  2. Leicester City and South Leicestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Paul Millis · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Paul Millis died after riding his motorbike through the junction of Troon Way and Nicklaus Road in Leicester and colliding head-on with a car on 3 December 2013. The principal concerns were the short distances over which two lanes merged and opposing traffic joined, potentially causing delayed lines of sight, together with the acute movement of one lane into the carriageway.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient separation between the junction, lane merger and joining traffic flows

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The merger of the 2 lanes occurs within a very short distance of the junction: approximately 35 metres. The process of merger by the 2 lanes is that the traffic moves in opposite directions – i.e. the inner lane moves to the right, thereby avoiding the verge, and the outer lane is directed by arrows to the left. 2. The westbound carriageway merges as described, and then as a single lane continues to the right until it straightens out into a single carriageway adjoining the eastbound traffic. The joining of the two flows of traffic occurs only 90 metres after the junction described above. 3. The situation described in 2 above means that any vehicle either behind another vehicle, or even beside it, will have a very delayed line of sight for traffic travelling eastbound, and likewise applies to eastbound traffic’s line of sight to a vehicle behind a first vehicle travelling westbound. As stated all of this movement of traffic is occurring in a very short distance and time. 4. It would appear that when the inner lane makes its sudden, very acute move to the right, that there is vacant verge area that would have allowed the lane to move less acutely. ”

    Source location

    Paul Millis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Acute rightward movement of the inner lane

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The merger of the 2 lanes occurs within a very short distance of the junction: approximately 35 metres. The process of merger by the 2 lanes is that the traffic moves in opposite directions – i.e. the inner lane moves to the right, thereby avoiding the verge, and the outer lane is directed by arrows to the left. 2. The westbound carriageway merges as described, and then as a single lane continues to the right until it straightens out into a single carriageway adjoining the eastbound traffic. The joining of the two flows of traffic occurs only 90 metres after the junction described above. 3. The situation described in 2 above means that any vehicle either behind another vehicle, or even beside it, will have a very delayed line of sight for traffic travelling eastbound, and likewise applies to eastbound traffic’s line of sight to a vehicle behind a first vehicle travelling westbound. As stated all of this movement of traffic is occurring in a very short distance and time. 4. It would appear that when the inner lane makes its sudden, very acute move to the right, that there is vacant verge area that would have allowed the lane to move less acutely. ”

    Source location

    Paul Millis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Undertake a fourth road safety audit after 12 months, reviewing serious accident records and causes and making recommendations on potential design and safety issues.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A fourth safety audit is required to be undertaken after 12 months. This will take into account records of accidents and make recommendations for any changes where significant levels of risk to users are identified.”

    Source location

    2014-0176-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 April 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The junction design complies with mandatory standards, and the merge length, alignment, visibility and traffic arrangement are considered reasonable and customary.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I can confirm and provide assurance that the highway design does comply with relevant standards, including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 6, Section 2, Part 3 - TD 50/04). I can also confirm that although the A563 Troon Way is not a trunk road, the higher design standards for trunk roads have been applied during the design process. In particular, the mandatory standards relating to visibility on approach to junctions have been met.”

    Source location

    2014-0176-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 April 2014

    Open published response

  3. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Kenneth Gerald Aldridge · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Kenneth Gerald Aldridge, aged 68, died after the car he was driving collided with another vehicle on the A4 near Woolhampton and then crashed into a tree. The principal concern was the appropriateness and potential danger of access to a service road from a 70-mile-per-hour dual carriageway, including vehicles turning into or pulling out of the service road.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inappropriate location of the service-road access on a 70-mile-per-hour dual carriageway

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) For a vehicle to turn in to the service road running parallel to the A4 it would be necessary to slow considerably and then effect the manoeuvre. It is not possible to make a complete manoeuvre round to the left without then forming a u-turn which is not possible without either reversing and going forward again or encroaching onto the outside lane of the A4 to make a sweeping manoeuvre into the access. (2) In the course of the evidence, the Collision Investigator who investigated the crash on behalf of Thames Valley Police suggested that the ability to make such a manoeuvre on a fast dual carriageway is potentially dangerous. While the Officer expressed concerns about turning in, he was also concerned about vehicles pulling out of the service road on to the dual carriageway. (3) The evidence therefore gave rise to concern at the appropriateness of having an access to the service road at such a location, particularly given a speed limit of 70 miles per hour at that point. ”

    Source location

    Kenneth Gerald Aldridge · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Introduce a 50mph speed limit on the A4, with its eastern start relocated approximately 140 metres west of the advertised location.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The speed limit on the A4 between the two A340 roundabouts was considered by the Council’s Speed Limit Task Group at its meeting in April 2010 when it was agreed that further traffic survey information was required. This section was reconsidered again in December 2010 when it was agreed to introduce a 50mph speed limit to cover the junctions with Beenham Industrial Estate and Beenham village. The task group also agreed that the existing speed limit on the remaining length of the A4, which included the dual carriageway, was appropriate.”

    Source location

    2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 February 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Consult local ward members and parish councils on proposals to block the first service-road entrance and create a replacement access.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To improve access into the service road the first entrance could be blocked up and a new access created as shown on the enclosed plan 213/002. This would prevent ‘U turn’ manoeuvres. However this could have the effect of vehicles entering the service road at speed. Due to the change in the nature of the road it is proposed to consult the local ward members and parish councils on the proposals and I will contact you again when I have received the comments to the consultation.”

    Source location

    2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
    Page 3 · response
    Published 24 February 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The existing speed limit on the dual carriageway is considered appropriate and does not need reconsideration.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The speed limit on the A4 between the two A340 roundabouts was considered by the Council’s Speed Limit Task Group at its meeting in April 2010 when it was agreed that further traffic survey information was required. This section was reconsidered again in December 2010 when it was agreed to introduce a 50mph speed limit to cover the junctions with Beenham Industrial Estate and Beenham village. The task group also agreed that the existing speed limit on the remaining length of the A4, which included the dual carriageway, was appropriate.”

    Source location

    2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 24 February 2014

    Open published response

  4. West Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Karl Olaf Nilsson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Karl Olaf Nilsson died minutes after suffering catastrophic injuries in a motorcycle collision at the junction of Victoria Road and the A657 Saltaire Road on 14 October 2012. The report raised concerns that the junction’s layout and the visibility of the STOP sign may have contributed to the fatality, and noted that this was the only junction along Victoria Road where drivers did not have right of way.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the junction layout to provide clear driver orientation

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There are a number of factors which could, in my opinion have caused or contributed to this fatality. Victoria Road is an absolutely straight road which is aligned in almost a perfect north-south direction. It is a wide avenue type of road, with large trees visible on both the east and west pavements. On both sides of the road there are parking bays, and the cars are able to park fully on the road, whilst still leaving ample room for cars to pass in both directions. The layout is the same on both sections of Victoria Road – both before and after it is bisected by the A657 Saltaire Road. There is a gradient of approximately 1:7 stretching uphill from north to south. The slope of the road is only interrupted by the A657, which is perfectly level, but due to the slope of the road, it is not seen until the driver is approximately 20 meters from the junction. Moreover, due to the slope of the road, the STOP sign and stop line painted on the road is only really visible when the driver is approximately 20 meters from the junction. The overall layout of the road (i.e. it being perfectly straight with a sort of symmetrical appearance on both sides) contrives to almost create an optical illusion. The driver’s eye is drawn to the horizon in the centre – and as such, the STOP sign at the mouth of the junction is only in the driver’s peripheral vision. 2. I am concerned that the overall layout of this junction was a substantial contributing factor to this fatal accident. 3. I am concerned that the STOP sign is not clearly visible in its current 4. Furthermore, I understand from the evidence which was given to me that this is the only junction on the entire length of Victoria Road where the driver does not have right of way. It is possible that Mr Nilsson became confused as to where he was on Victoria Road. ”

    Source location

    Karl Olaf Nilsson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Remove five trees at each corner of the junction to improve visibility.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I concur with your assessment of the junction under Item 5, Coroner's concerns with the exception of 5.6. The trees (trunks and canopies) assisted with the uneven effect by masking the building lines at the junction. Therefore the optical illusion effect was enhanced by this. This was qualified by attending police officers at the time of the incident. Under my duties as Principal Engineer, I arranged for five trees to be removed at each corner of the junction. This immediately opened up the building lines and improved the visibility of the junction.”

    Source location

    Response from Bradford Metropolitan District Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 February 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Construct the junction improvement scheme with stronger signing, lining, junction demarcation, detection loops and queue-triggered puffin crossing control.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A public realm scheme for Victoria Road has recently been awarded funding. This will involve the restoration of Victoria Road back to it's historical beginnings. One of the proposals is to remove all the trees for both sides of Victoria Road as the trees were a later addition to Victoria Road and did not feature in the original plan for the street. A consultant is currently taking place on this. As part of the public realm/safety improvements, a junction improvement scheme is about to be constructed (please find attached plan). The design incorporates stronger signing and lining and a clear, on-road demarcation of the junction from both approaches into Saltaire Road. An addition of detection loops to Victoria Road will assist with right turning vehicles into Saltaire Road. A puffin crossing 10 yards away from the junction will be triggered (i.e.”

    Source location

    Response from Bradford Metropolitan District Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 February 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The assessment under item 5.6 is disputed: trees masked building lines and enhanced the junction’s optical illusion.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I concur with your assessment of the junction under Item 5, Coroner's concerns with the exception of 5.6. The trees (trunks and canopies) assisted with the uneven effect by masking the building lines at the junction. Therefore the optical illusion effect was enhanced by this. This was qualified by attending police officers at the time of the incident. Under my duties as Principal Engineer, I arranged for five trees to be removed at each corner of the junction. This immediately opened up the building lines and improved the visibility of the junction.”

    Source location

    Response from Bradford Metropolitan District Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 February 2014

    Open published response

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026