First reported 17 Oct 2013•Latest report 2 Feb 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes failures of road-marking controls on public roads, including absence, deterioration, illegibility, inadequate prominence, failure to highlight hazards and inadequate assessment or specification of required markings, where the marking deficiency creates a road-safety risk.
Not included
Excludes road signage, street lighting, road layout, visibility or surface defects when no road-marking deficiency is identified.
Excludes generic highway maintenance, inspection or risk-assessment failures unless they directly concern the provision, condition or assessment of road markings.
Excludes markings dedicated to non-road settings, such as railway platforms, unless the assertion concerns public-road markings.
Excludes the underlying hazard, such as a pothole or unsafe junction, when the road-marking control is not itself deficient.
Reports
34
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
37
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2013–2026
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
38
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.
National Highways8
Department for Transport5
Office of the Chief Coroner4
Recipient name withheld3
Durham County Council2
Transport for London2
Apple (UK) Limited1
Avon and Somerset Constabulary1
Bath and North East Somerset Council1
Bury Borough Council1
Calderdale Borough Council1
Cheshire West and Chester Council1
Cornwall Council1
Daughter of the deceased1
Duchy of Cornwall1
English unitary authority9
National road infrastructure body8
Type not available7
Ministerial department5
Coronial office4
English metropolitan district council4
London borough council2
Police force2
Public transport authority2
Sub-organisation2
Combined authority1
Company1
Devolved government1
English county council1
English district council1
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.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised1
Failure of road markings to prevent prohibited overtaking and right turns
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 concerns
Each 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
Conduct a site visit and discuss observed traffic movements and overtaking at the A5 location.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 February 2026.
Action
Investigate road markings, signing and carriageway layout on the A5 within National Highways’ jurisdiction to identify potential overtaking mitigation measures.
Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 February 2026.
Action
Install a no-right-turn sign at the Moss Farm shop car-park exit.
Stated by Moss Farm shopStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 February 2026.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.6
Position
Staffordshire Police is responsible for enforcing the double white line system.
Stated by National HighwaysRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Enforcement of the road layout and guidance to road users is outside the respondent’s authority.
Stated by Moss Farm shopOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Enforcement of signed road rules and road markings is assigned to the highways department and police.
Stated by Moss Farm shopRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
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 TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The prescribed double white line marking and its inclusion in the Highway Code are considered sufficient for drivers to understand its meaning.
Stated by Department for TransportExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
The evidence does not necessarily show that drivers misunderstand the double white line marking; a site-specific factor may explain non-compliance.
Stated by Department for TransportDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Lack of central road markings
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 concerns
Each 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
Introduce improved centre-line markings and parking bays on High Street where feasible.
Stated by Sandwell Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 February 2026.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised1
Absence of road markings on the approach to the hump back bridge
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 concerns
Each 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
Install additional road markings on the B5012 at Pillaton as part of the planned surface treatment programme.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2025.
West Yorkshire (Western)
Concerns raised1
Lack of road markings advising on appropriate speed or road curvature ahead
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 concerns
Each 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
Calderdale Council is responsible for the A672 carriageway and immediate slip-road interface beyond National Highways’ boundary, including associated signs and markings.
Stated by National HighwaysRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Milton Keynes
Concerns raised1
Failure to maintain adequate visibility of road-surface No Entry markings at the slip-road junction
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 concerns
Each 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
Complete a full safety review of the junction against the current Wrong Way Driving: Mitigation Toolkit.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Continue developing enhanced A5 off-slip mitigation options and establish which measures will be progressed, including improved signage and road markings.
Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Inspect the junction and assess signage and road markings for safety defects.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
The junction already has all standard wrong-way-driving mitigation measures required by the current toolkit.
Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Existing signage and road markings appeared adequate under applicable regulations, although illumination might improve the no-entry signage.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The council has no powers to improve the junction mouth, signage or road markings because these are outside its highway authority functions.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
National Highways is responsible for the slip road junction, its signage and road markings, so it must undertake related improvements.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
Deficient road markings
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 concerns
Each 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
Refresh road markings in the vicinity of the accident.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
Action
Continue scheduled highway safety inspections to assess condition and identify issues meeting investigatory levels for remedial action.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 August 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Scheduled highway safety inspections will identify issues meeting investigatory levels for remedial action, providing the ongoing response to highway-condition concerns.
Stated by Durham County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
East Riding and Hull
Concerns raised1
Failure to set a timescale for assessment of additional road markings
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 concerns
Each 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
Visibility is suitable for the 40mph limit and existing hazard warning centre lines are appropriate; no additional works are planned.
Stated by East Riding of Yorkshire CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Concerns raised1
Fading and disappearance of deflection arrows on the road
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 concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised2
Lack of double white hazard warning lines at a reduced-visibility bend
Failure to ensure consistent speed-limit messaging through road markings and signs
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 concerns
Each 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
Remove the two SLOW road markings.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 November 2020.
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 CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
Gwent
Concerns raised1
Lack of double white lines restricting overtaking on the A468
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures of road-marking controls on public roads, including absence, deterioration, illegibility, inadequate prominence, failure to highlight hazards and inadequate assessment or specification of required markings, where the marking deficiency creates a road-safety risk.
