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
Confusing bicycle-lane design and appearance 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 raised2
Insufficient separation between the junction, lane merger and joining traffic flows
Acute rightward movement of the inner lane
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
Undertake a fourth road safety audit after 12 months, reviewing serious accident records and causes and making recommendations on potential design and safety issues.
Stated by Leicester City 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 design complies with mandatory standards, and the merge length, alignment, visibility and traffic arrangement are considered reasonable and customary.
Stated by Leicester City Council
-
Concerns raised1
Inappropriate location of the service-road access on a 70-mile-per-hour dual carriageway
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
Introduce a 50mph speed limit on the A4, with its eastern start relocated approximately 140 metres west of the advertised location.
Stated by West Berkshire Council -
Action
Consult local ward members and parish councils on proposals to block the first service-road entrance and create a replacement access.
Stated by West Berkshire Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The existing speed limit on the dual carriageway is considered appropriate and does not need reconsideration.
Stated by West Berkshire Council
-
Concerns raised1
Failure of the junction layout to provide clear driver orientation
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
Remove five trees at each corner of the junction to improve visibility.
Stated by Bradford City Council -
Action
Construct the junction improvement scheme with stronger signing, lining, junction demarcation, detection loops and queue-triggered puffin crossing control.
Stated by Bradford City Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
The assessment under item 5.6 is disputed: trees masked building lines and enhanced the junction’s optical illusion.
Stated by Bradford City Council
Data last updated 7 September 2026