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.
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised1
Sparse provision of facilitated pedestrian crossing points on the A6120
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
Widen the carriageway to construct a pedestrian refuge at the crossing location.
Stated by Leeds City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
Cumbria
Concerns raised2
Application of the national speed limit on the village section failing to provide safe pedestrian crossing conditions
Lack of street lighting on the road section
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
Review the speed limit, street lighting, pedestrian crossing safety and underpass signing at the Backbarrow A590 location.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
The existing 60 mph national speed limit is considered appropriate and consistent with current guidance for this stretch of the A590.
Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Existing conditions and the low collision record are considered sufficient, so installing street lighting on this A590 stretch is not considered appropriate or beneficial.
Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Inner South London
Concerns raised2
Obstruction of street-lamp lighting by tree foliage
Speed cushion failing to require vehicles to slow down
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
Arrange cutting back privately owned tree foliage to the highway boundary near the collision site.
Stated by London Borough of LewishamStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 December 2018.
Action
Reconstruct speed cushions near the two pedestrian refuge crossing points adjacent to Mayow Park.
Stated by London Borough of LewishamStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 21 December 2018.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Financial constraints mean widespread renewal of worn traffic-calming features is not feasible; only cushions near the crossings will be reconstructed.
Stated by London Borough of LewishamUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Isle of Wight
Concerns raised1
Lack of a safe pedestrian crossing on the A3054 at the Sloop Inn
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.7
Action
Complete a site review against guidance to assess the suitability of installing a controlled pedestrian crossing.
Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2019.
Action
Instruct Island Roads to undertake feasibility study and design work for a controlled pedestrian crossing at the location.
Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2019.
Action
Review the crossing site and assess its suitability for a controlled pedestrian facility using collision data and Local Transport Note 1/95 guidance.
Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2019.
Action
Develop and cost a feasibility design and concept layout for a controlled pedestrian crossing.
Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2019.
Action
Conduct a pedestrian survey to measure crossing demand and difficulty during peak periods.
Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2019.
Action
Undertake a further summer pedestrian survey to measure vehicle and pedestrian numbers during the peak tourist season.
Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 May 2019.
Action
Complete a further assessment of controlled-crossing suitability and potential funding after receiving the summer peak-flow data.
Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 May 2019.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Current evidence does not indicate that the site meets the criteria for a pedestrian-controlled crossing, although seasonal variation will be assessed.
Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The location is not presently justified for a controlled crossing because pedestrian demand is low, alternative facilities exist, and crossings are generally safe.
Stated by Ringway Island RoadsDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Dorset
Concerns raised2
Lack of barriers separating the road and pavement on the northern approach to the junction
Lack of safe pedestrian crossing provision 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.1
Action
Carry out the wider A354 route study and consider the junction crossing, cyclist stop-line and corridor safety recommendations within it.
Stated by Dorset CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 May 2019.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Pedestrian crossings and cyclists’ advanced stop lines cannot yet be committed to because the wider route study and available funding remain uncertain.
Stated by Dorset CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
South Yorkshire (Western)
Concerns raised1
Risk of pedestrians being misled by conflicting pedestrian signals when crossing the northbound lanes of the A61
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
Re-aligned the narrow-field pedestrian signal units to minimise misleading signal views.
Stated by the CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 September 2018.
Action
Install a Visirail pedestrian barrier around the junction corner to deter pedestrians from crossing at the hazardous location.
Stated by the CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 September 2018.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Further realignment or relocation of the pedestrian signals is not feasible because it would compromise crossing visibility, accessibility, or available island space.
Stated by the CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
Inadequate physical separation between foot crossing users and the railway
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.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Further boundary mitigation is not required because fencing is in good condition, fit for purpose, compliant, and unrelated to the incident’s access route.
Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised1
Lack of measures to protect pedestrians crossing the A63 dual carriageway
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
Existing informal pedestrian crossing measures were considered the most appropriate provision, so no further highway intervention was offered.
Stated by Leeds City CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Dorset
Concerns raised1
Failure to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing Barrack Road dangerously
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
Continue delivering Bikeability cycle-safety training at local schools.
Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
Action
Remove the segregated footway/cycleway sign and relocate the end-of-cycle-route sign closer to the toucan crossing.
Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Realigning the electricity sub-station fence is impractical because it would compromise engineers’ safety when accessing the sub-station.
Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Inner North London
Concerns raised2
Failure to consider proportionate pedestrian-crossing options at the junction
Delays in delivering pedestrian safety improvements at the crossroads
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
Progress a banned turning movement and implement a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing on Dukes Road, subject to Camden Council agreement.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 December 2017.
Action
Continue working with Camden Council to develop designs enabling safer pedestrian and cycle facilities at the junction and nearby locations.
Stated by Transport for LondonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 December 2017.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Network capacity and projected congestion impacts prevent TfL from introducing crossings that require holding traffic at the junction.
Stated by Transport for LondonUnable 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.
