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.
East Riding and Hull
Concerns raised1
Inadequate provision of suitable pedestrian crossing facilities on Lowgate
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.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Hertfordshire
Concerns raised1
Lack of working lights on a pedestrian refuge
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
Add the site to the asset inventory and inspect and maintain its bollards and beacon every 20 days, attending to faults when necessary.
Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 February 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
The refuge beacon is not designed to provide lighting for crossing users; it only identifies the island for motorists from a distance.
Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Birmingham and Solihull
Concerns raised1
Failure to maintain the kerb at the junction to prevent it appearing to be an official crossing point
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.2
Action
Amend the kerb height at the footpath outside 214 Alcester Road South at the Livingstone Road junction.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 December 2022.
Action
Review network kerb-defect information and intervention criteria to identify similar locations and incorporate necessary maintenance processes.
Stated by Birmingham City CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 December 2022.
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
Insufficient pedestrian crossing signal timings at the junction
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.6
Action
Progress the Safer Junction scheme and include Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road, subject to final Department for Transport approvals.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
Action
Ask scheme designers to consider pedestrian safety options at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
Action
Consider modernising pedestrian signals, including possible countdown signals, as part of the junction scheme.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
Action
Progress the Safer Junction scheme, including the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction, through feasibility, design and construction.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
Action
Undertake a design review of the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction to identify ways to improve signal operation and provide additional pedestrian crossing time.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
Action
Review operational timings and SCOOT settings across the Shoreditch Triangle to optimise movement phases, junction coordination and pedestrian waiting times.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
The crossings’ existing signal timings are longer than reported and comply with Department for Transport and TfL standards and guidance.
Stated by Transport for LondonDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The proposed junction safety schemes were paused because pandemic-related fare losses created funding constraints pending a long-term Government funding agreement.
Stated by Transport for LondonUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Herefordshire
Concerns raised1
Limited visibility at the footpath crossing of the A44
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
Remove foliage to improve forward visibility at the crossing.
Stated by Herefordshire CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 October 2022.
Action
Reinstate visibility splays along the bypass to improve visibility for pedestrians and motorists.
Stated by Herefordshire CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 6 October 2022.
Action
Add the Kington Bypass to an enhanced maintenance regime with quarterly safety inspections and designated steward awareness of site safety requirements.
Stated by Herefordshire CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 October 2022.
Action
Cut back vegetation, trees and verges to increase sight lines to 160 metres.
Stated by Balfour Beatty Living PlacesStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 October 2022.
Action
Carry out cyclical grass cutting in May and August each year.
Stated by Balfour Beatty Living PlacesStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 October 2022.
Action
Cut back verges and tree foliage following the accident to address visibility.
Stated by Balfour Beatty Living PlacesStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 6 October 2022.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
The pedestrian guardrail is considered adequate, so its position and layout will not be altered.
Stated by Herefordshire CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
The existing pedestrian guardrail is considered adequate protection, so the historic crossing will not be moved or bridged.
Stated by Herefordshire CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
The speed limit will not be lowered below 50mph because that is considered appropriate for this road and limits apply by road section.
Stated by Herefordshire CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
Position
The pedestrian and vehicle restraint barriers and existing pedestrian crossing were considered adequate and did not require alteration.
Stated by Balfour Beatty Living PlacesExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised2
Pedestrian crossings requiring people to walk on railway tracks
Failure to reduce or rationalise the number of crossings
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.5
Action
Submitted a consultation response supporting proposals to improve crossing safety and accessibility for disabled and non-disabled users.
Stated by Erewash Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Maintain regular dialogue with Network Rail about level-crossing diversions, bridges, future management and safer access to non-operational land.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Continue Countryside Access Team contact and collaboration with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team on public-highway rights across railway land.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Divert public rights of way at specified Nottinghamshire crossings to remove or avoid at-grade railway crossings.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Provide temporary emergency closure of Burton Joyce Footpath No.6 to prevent public access during Network Rail emergency safety works.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.5
Position
Network Rail is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the safety of the national rail network, including level crossings.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Network Rail would have to apply under section 119A of the Highways Act 1980 to divert the public footpath’s current alignment.
Stated by Derbyshire County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
Previous changes, including potential closures, to level crossings near Attenborough Nature Reserve could not be implemented because of strong local opposition.
Stated by NetworkRailUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
The assertion that local authorities opposed Network Rail’s efforts to rationalise crossings is incorrect in respect of Nottinghamshire County Council.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The Authority cannot unilaterally close or rationalise crossings because statutory consultation and objection procedures restrict its available powers.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
West Sussex
Concerns raised1
Lack of an alternative safe crossing at the junction
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
Undertake a feasibility study and options appraisal for improving the crossing point, including bridge and traffic-light-controlled crossing options.
Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 June 2021.
Brighton and Hove
Concerns raised1
Lack of a safe crossing point on the A2100 Battle Hill
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
Complete a feasibility study of pedestrian-crossing options and wider Battle Hill safety measures.
Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
Action
Complete a preliminary design for a light-controlled crossing and a direct, level pedestrian route across the filling-station forecourt.
Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
Action
Complete a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit of the preliminary crossing and forecourt-route design.
Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
Action
Progress the crossing scheme through statutory and local-stakeholder consultation, then toward detailed design subject to the consultation outcome.
Stated by East Sussex County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
Crash analysis did not identify a clear causal factor or consistent manoeuvre that could be addressed solely through an engineered intervention.
Stated by East Sussex County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The location did not meet the established crash-frequency or severity criteria requiring an annual Road Safety Team review.
Stated by East Sussex County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Pedestrian safety within the filling-station forecourt requires cooperation and legal agreements with its private owner and operators.
Stated by East Sussex County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The Council cannot confirm the crossing works or completion timeframe because funding is limited and capital expenditure follows an approved process.
Stated by East Sussex County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
East London
Concerns raised4
Risk of future deaths from the combined crossing hazards
Obstruction of drivers' view of pedestrians waiting at the crossing
Failure of vehicles to comply with automated traffic signals
Hazardous crossing approach following a bend with a higher preceding speed limit
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.5
Action
Conduct fatal-collision site visits with multidisciplinary staff to identify and address road-safety issues.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 November 2020.
Action
Undertake a further safety review, including reassessing street-furniture positioning, by the end of November 2020.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 November 2020.
Action
Liaise with the retail park to request regular maintenance and cutting of vegetation and trees within its property boundary.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 November 2020.
Action
Renew the 30mph signs so the central-reservation and farside signs match the nearside sign size.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 November 2020.
Action
Resurface the Gallows Corner roundabout and A12 approaches, renewing white lines, markings, bus-stop cage lining and red surfacing.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 November 2020.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.8
Position
The pelican crossing’s design, operation and signal timings comply with current TfL standards and provide adequate opportunity for pedestrians to cross safely.
Stated by Transport for LondonExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Highway safety actions at the location fall outside Havering Council’s authority because Transport for London is the highway authority.
Stated by London Borough of HaveringOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
Transport for London must investigate and determine any action concerning the highway network at the location.
Stated by London Borough of HaveringRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The inspected camera, vegetation, bus stand and signage did not obstruct drivers’ sightlines to the controlled crossing.
Stated by London Borough of HaveringDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The Metropolitan Police is responsible for investigating and enforcing traffic-light and speed offences at the crossing.
Stated by London Borough of HaveringRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The reported high non-compliance with traffic signals was not observed during the Council’s site visit, although the observation may have been unreliable.
Stated by London Borough of HaveringDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The 30 mph speed limit and its location relative to the pedestrian crossing comply with relevant highway regulations.
Stated by Transport for LondonDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
No road bend causing driver sightline problems was apparent near the crossing during inspection.
Stated by London Borough of HaveringDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
Foreseeable pedestrian crossing of an unlit high-speed 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 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.5
Action
Complete an independent road safety assessment covering street lighting and pedestrian-route provision along the A690.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 September 2020.
Action
Install signs directing pedestrians from the northern A690 footway through the Gilesgate footbridge route.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 September 2020.
Action
Install guardrail and wayfinding signs to discourage pedestrian access to the south-westbound carriageway and south-eastern verge.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 September 2020.
Action
Clear foliage and install a timber post-and-rail fence to improve the retained footpath and discourage access to the A690 beyond the footbridge.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 September 2020.
Action
Remove access to the public footpath on the south-westbound on-slip at the C13 junction.
Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 September 2020.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
The section of the A690 has no fundamental safety issues requiring further action.
Stated by Durham County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Existing parallel, street-lit, lower-speed pedestrian routes are considered sufficient, so lighting and footways will not be added to the A690.
Stated by Durham County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Street lighting and associated footway works are not proposed because lighting is cost-neutral and additional footway and fencing would increase scheme costs.
Stated by Durham County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
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.
