First reported 5 Aug 2013•Latest report 8 Jun 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes crossing provision, siting, visibility, signals, markings, refuge, warnings and speed controls when the source ties them directly to pedestrian crossing safety.
Not included
General pedestrian-and-vehicle separation away from a crossing
Road hazards that do not concern pedestrian crossing safety
Reports
71
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
113
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2013–2026
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
136
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 Highways11
Department for Transport6
Transport for London6
Network Rail5
Staffordshire County Council5
Birmingham City Council3
Recipient name withheld3
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council2
Durham County Council2
Hampshire County Council2
Leeds City Council2
Nottinghamshire County Council2
Office of Rail and Road2
Sandwell Borough Council2
Surrey County Council2
English county council18
English metropolitan district council15
English unitary authority12
National road infrastructure body11
London borough council7
Ministerial department6
Public transport authority6
Rail infrastructure manager5
Type not available4
Private limited company3
Sub-organisation3
Public limited company2
Transport regulator2
Airport operator1
Coach operator1
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 to provide pedestrian guardrails at a primary informal crossing location
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
Extend the Stone active-travel and structural-maintenance study area to include the Christchurch Way pedestrian desire-line crossing location.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 September 2026.
Action
Assess national pedestrian-guardrail guidance and alternative measures to encourage safer pedestrian crossing routes at the Christchurch Way location.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 September 2026.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Additional pedestrian guardrails cannot be adopted straightforwardly because they may obstruct vehicle visibility or redirect pedestrians into the carriageway.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Nottingham and Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised2
Failure to provide adequate warning signage for pedestrians crossing near the car park
Lack of assistance for pedestrians crossing the road
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.4
Action
Install two pedestrian warning signs on approaches to HMP Ranby alongside existing slow-warning signs.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County Council and Via East MidlandsStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 August 2026.
Action
Implement monitoring and verification of highway safety measures commissioned following collision investigations.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County Council and Via East MidlandsStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 August 2026.
Action
Complete pedestrian-movement, road-safety and feasibility investigations identifying a preferred location for a signal-controlled puffin crossing.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County Council and Via East MidlandsStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 August 2026.
Action
Progress detailed design, statutory consultation, approvals, procurement and construction of a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing adjacent to the prison overflow car park.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County Council and Via East MidlandsStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 August 2026.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Lack of pedestrian crossings on the High Street
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
Pursue introduction of a zebra crossing near the shop and café at High Street’s north-eastern end, subject to statutory consultation.
Stated by Sandwell Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 February 2026.
Oxfordshire
Concerns raised1
Obscured visibility of the pedestrian crossing for approaching vehicles
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.
Dorset
Concerns raised1
Lack of pedestrian pathway and crossing facility at Parley Lane Parking
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.6
Action
Complete the review of the Parley Lane speed limit.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Consult on reducing the Parley Lane speed limit from 60 to 40 mph.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Implement the 40 mph Parley Lane speed limit by July 2025.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Assess the location for a vehicle-activated sign after the speed limit is reduced to 40 mph.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Re-check the operation of pedestrian crossing facilities at the Hurn Court Lane and Parley Lane junction.
Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Make representations to BCP about safety arrangements for Parley Lane, its junction and the Adventure Wonderland car park.
Stated by Bournemouth AirportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
The airport cannot act on Parley Lane, its junction, or the Adventure Wonderland car park because it controls none of those areas.
Stated by Bournemouth AirportOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
BCP Council and the Highways Agency are responsible for Parley Lane, rather than the airport.
Stated by Bournemouth AirportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
West London
Concerns raised2
Lack of certainty that the pedestrian crossing safety redesign will be implemented
Absence of effective pedestrian crossing controls at Jersey Road
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.6
Action
Continue working with TfL and stakeholders to secure priority implementation of the proposed pedestrian and cyclist crossing safety measures.
Stated by London Borough of HounslowStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 June 2025.
Action
Develop a formal signalised crossing scheme across the A4 and both sections of Jersey Road, with associated highway-layout amendments.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 June 2025.
Action
Conduct discussions and site meetings with TfL to improve A4 traffic conditions for vulnerable road users.
Stated by London Borough of HounslowStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 June 2025.
Action
Consult on TfL’s proposed crossing designs and ensure they are technically sound and aligned with local users’ needs.
Stated by London Borough of HounslowStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 June 2025.
Action
Work with TfL to facilitate interim temporary pedestrian warning signs at the crossing location.
Stated by London Borough of HounslowStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 June 2025.
Action
Review nearby pedestrian and vehicle collisions using historic collision data to identify additional collision-risk reductions.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 June 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.6
Position
The Department does not oversee or consent to TfL’s traffic schemes, including this pedestrian crossing.
Stated by Department for TransportOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
TfL and the London Borough of Hounslow are responsible for implementing the crossing redesign, subject to funding and public consultation.
Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
TfL and the Mayor of London decide, prioritise and approve investment funding for the pedestrian crossing redesign.
Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
DfT consent is not required, and LBH consent is needed only for minor works on its road network.
Stated by Transport for LondonDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Earlier implementation is constrained by required design, modelling, consultation, governance, contractor mobilisation and funding steps.
Stated by Transport for LondonUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
TfL is responsible for safety, maintenance, signs and signals on the A4, while the borough’s highway authority role is limited to Jersey Road.
Stated by London Borough of HounslowRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised2
Lack of warning to drivers about pedestrians crossing
Lack of provision allowing pedestrians to cross the road safely
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
Continue evaluating pedestrian-safety measures at Eastern Way, including vegetation clearance, warning signs and markings, a gate or barrier, and a possible speed-limit reduction.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Lack of clear and visible pedestrian crossing indications at the junction
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
Commission an independent road safety audit of the proposed pedestrian markings and traffic signal relocation works.
Stated by Sandwell Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
The current layout meets all applicable design standards, notwithstanding the planned additional pedestrian safety measures.
Stated by Sandwell Borough CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
Risk of further accidents at a busy pedestrian crossing
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.2
Position
The matter falls outside National Highways’ authority because it is not the highway authority for the A595 at Orton Grange.
Stated by Monmouthshire County CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Responsibility for the A595 at the identified location rests with Cumberland Council, which should respond to the report.
Stated by Monmouthshire County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Newcastle and North Tyneside
Concerns raised3
Failure to restrict pedestrian access to the carriageway
Failure to provide signage prohibiting non-designated crossing or warning of crossing risks
Inadequate provision of accessible designated pedestrian crossing points
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
Complete a road safety review of the location and assess the suitability of existing pedestrian crossing points.
Stated by Sunderland City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2023.
Action
Install signs on both sides of Doxford Parkway directing pedestrians to nearby crossing points.
Stated by Sunderland City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 June 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Additional fencing was not supported because it was considered likely to encourage barrier hopping by more agile pedestrians.
Stated by Sunderland City CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
Position
Existing footways and nearby pedestrian crossings were considered adequate provision at the collision location.
Stated by Sunderland City CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes crossing provision, siting, visibility, signals, markings, refuge, warnings and speed controls when the source ties them directly to pedestrian crossing safety.
