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.
Powys, Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys
Concerns raised1
Inadequate road markings permitting overtaking on a road with a side entrance and obscured visibility
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.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Avon
Concerns raised1
Inadequate road signs and carriageway markings warning drivers about the severity of approaching bends
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.1
Action
Install vehicle-activated signs on both approaches to Hartley Bends.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 April 2014.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Rumble strips are unsuitable on single-carriageway bends because they may reduce traction, create hazards for oncoming vehicles and increase noise.
Stated by National HighwaysUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
East Sussex
Concerns raised1
Lack of a SLOW carriageway marking on the approach to the bend
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
Provide additional SLOW road markings on the carriageway.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 January 2014.
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
Use of unbordered blue strips that confuse cyclists and motorists about cycle-lane status and positioning
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.9
Action
Commission, manage, review and act on research into coloured cycle-route surfacing and road-user interaction.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Action
Consider changes to current and planned Cycle Superhighway designs after the further surfacing research concludes.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Action
Suspend new applications of unbordered blue surfacing through signal-controlled junctions pending risk assessment and further research.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Action
Replace unbordered blue surfacing at signal-controlled junctions with logo patches, retaining blue patches where junctions contain yellow boxes.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Action
Minimise unbordered blue surfacing at priority junctions and use blue surfacing with dashed white lane markings wherever possible.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Action
Minimise unbordered blue surfacing near signalised junctions and on route links, using logo patches or advisory line markings where appropriate.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Action
Continue using advisory cycle lanes with dashed white lines through signal-controlled junctions on Cycle Superhighway 2.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Action
Replace existing blue surfacing at Bow Roundabout’s north-west and south-west slip roads with blue logo patches.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Action
Avoid applying unbordered blue surfacing at Bow Roundabout’s north-east and south-east slip roads pending further research.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 October 2013.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
The existence of cyclist and road-user confusion from unbordered blue surfacing is neither substantiated nor negated by existing research.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Further research is required before implementing new unbordered blue surfacing or retrospectively removing existing applications.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Blue surfacing will be retained in bus lanes because mandatory markings and bus-lane enforcement provide cyclists with formally protected space.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Unbordered blue surfacing will be retained at limited locations where lane width prevents formal cycle-lane markings and traffic conflict is not expected.
Stated by Greater London AuthorityExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
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.
