Recurring concern

Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely

First to latest report 15 Nov 2013 — 23 Apr 2025

Reports that mention this concern
25
Times this concern has been raised
26
Stated actions linked to this concern
14

What this concern includes

Includes road crests, bends, junction layouts and comparable fixed road features where the coroner identifies inadequate driver sight distance.

What is not included
  • Vehicle conspicuity or vehicle blind spots
  • Road lighting, signs or markings where geometric sight distance is adequate
  • General highway maintenance without an identified sight-distance hazard

Reports and published responses 25 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    June Russell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    June Russell died following a road traffic collision on 2 May 2018 at the junction of the B470 High Street, Langley, and the A4 London Road. The report identified concerns about recurring collisions at the junction and the adequacy of its signs, traffic lights, layout and line of sight.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unsafe layout or line of sight on the approach to the junction

    Wider context from the report

    “I consider that Slough Borough Council should take action to address the injury collision rate at this junction. Some work is ongoing, but this has been the case for over a year. This consideration should include: (a) Improvements to the signs at and before this junction. (b) Primary and secondary traffic light heads. (c) Layout and line of sight on the approach to this junction from the B470 High Street Langley. (d) It was not clear during the evidence whether the traffic lights in question are LED lights, which may assist in this respect as well. ”

    Source location

    June Russell · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Separate the secondary traffic signal heads and add guidance markings to direct drivers safely through the junction.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(ii) Primary and secondary traffic light heads”

    Source location

    2019-0128-Response-by-Slough-Borough-Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Complete an independent junction safety review, including collision-data assessment, and provide a report with proposals for further improvements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Immediately after the Inquest which took place on 2nd April 2019, the Service Lead for Major Infrastructure Projects at the Council commissioned an independent road safety engineer to carry out a full review of this junction in conjunction with a traffic signal engineer. Those professionals met on 29th May 2019 to discuss preliminary findings. Once the review has been fully carried out, including a detailed assessment of collision data, a detailed report will be provided with full proposals for any further improvements. It is envisaged that this report will be provided within approximately 6-8 weeks, following which recommendations for further action will be put forward for implementation. The report will identify options for the short, medium and long term, to address the road safety collisions at this junction.”

    Source location

    2019-0128-Response-by-Slough-Borough-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 June 2019

    Open published response

  2. Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Harry James Jellicoe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Harry James Jellicoe was driving on the A151 in wet conditions when he lost control of his car, which left the carriageway and struck a tree. He suffered severe injuries and died in hospital some days later. The principal concerns included the road’s restricted visibility through a bridge, the absence of a specific speed restriction or priority signage, and the potential hazard posed to unfamiliar drivers; the vehicle also had extensively worn front tyres associated with longstanding misalignment.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Restricted visibility through the bridge arch preventing identification of opposing traffic

    Wider context from the report

    “(V)      Although traffic approaching from the West has a clear view of the bridge for some considerable distance, the nature of the landscape is such that it is not possible to see any significant distance beyond the bridge arch to identify traffic, especially high sided vehicles which may be occupying the centre of the carriageway, approaching from the East. (VI)      Similarly, and for the same reasons, traffic approaching from the East has a much reduced view of the approach to the bridge and cannot identify traffic approaching from the West. (VII)      In light of the current signage and proper recommendation that high sided vehicles utilise the centre of the carriageway, given the restricted line of vision through the bridge arch, you may feel that the current speed limit is too high and requires revision. Likewise, there is no signage indicating priority of passage where high sided vehicles are required to utilise the full carriageway. (VIII)      I received evidence that there have been very few reported collisions involving HGV’s at this location, there was a clear consensus among the local drivers who gave evidence that this location posed a significant potential hazard, for the reasons given above, particularly for those motorists who were not familiar with the area. ”

    Source location

    Harry James Jellicoe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  3. Northamptonshire

    AI-generated summary

    Darryl Alfred Wayne Rego SOUZA · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Darryl Alfred Wayne Rego Souza died at the scene on 7 October 2017 from fatal chest injuries sustained when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a Mini at a crossroads in Clipston, Northamptonshire. Concerns included compromised visibility at the junction, the lack of a timeframe for planned improvements to signage and rumble strips, a recommendation that Stop signs be considered, and a further accident at the same location around one week before the resumed inquest.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Compromised visibility at the junction

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Paragraphs 6.11 – 6.14 of the Forensic Collision Investigator’s report is set out below. 6.11 There is no doubt that the visibility at this junction is compromised by the road geography and as such high visibility “Give Way” signs and crossroads signs together with “SLOW” painted on the road surface serve to highlight the location of the crossroads and the need to take care. 6.12 In view if the visibility at this junction and after reviewing the Collision statistics at this junction there are to be some improvements carried out. 6.13 These improvements include renewing the signing particularly from the Sibbertoft direction and noise or rumble strips to be placed on the road again from the Sibbertoft direction. 6.14 At the time of writing this report, there is no time frame as to when these improvements will be completed. 2. Additionally, during evidence, the Collision Investigator recommended that the junction may benefit from the installation of “Stop” signs. 3. One of the witnesses at the inquest stated that there had been a further accident, at the same location, around one week before the resumed inquest date. ”

    Source location

    Darryl Alfred Wayne Rego SOUZA · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Convert both junction approaches from Give Way to Stop controls through an identical scheme.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Taking account of the recommendation in your report for the junction to be regulated by ‘Stop’ signs rather than the current ‘Give Way’ controls, our engineering experts have revisited the location to investigate the feasibility of a re-grade. This type of measure is governed by national guidelines and generally confined to junctions where, in the main, visibility is severely hampered. Our experts measured an available view of 95 metres to the left from the junction mouth. This is on the margins of intervention levels but will consequently provide justification for conversion to a ‘Stop’ requirement. We will therefore include this modification in the scheme. Furthermore, the opposing junction is similar in nature and characteristic in terms of available views and the obvious requirement to exercise care.”

    Source location

    Response from Northamptonshire County Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 June 2018

    Open published response

  4. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Molly Jean Mills · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Molly Jean Mills, known as Jean, was involved in a collision with a lorry while turning right on the A6006 near Stanford on Soar on 6 June 2017. She died in hospital on 17 July 2017 after contracting bronchopneumonia associated with rib fractures sustained in the collision. The report identified concerns that the junction layout, incline, obstructed visibility, unclear manoeuvring arrangements and inadequate warnings increased the risk of future collisions and deaths.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate visibility of oncoming traffic for vehicles waiting or turning at the junction

    Wider context from the report

    “1. There is a significant incline on this road (in the direction the lorry was travelling). This makes the visibility issues referred to below much more significant. 2. If there are vehicles in the central carriageway waiting to turn right into both the DNRC and Home Farm, as here, there is a risk of them having an inadequate view of oncoming traffic on the A6006, before making their turning manoeuvres. 3. This is the case in both directions, but particularly for vehicles travelling in the direction towards Rempstone, because of the incline of the road. 4. The evidence of the lorry driver was that he did not see Jean’s car until she turned in front of his vehicle. 5. The evidence of the Forensic Collision Investigation Unit officer was that Jean’s view would have been largely or completely blocked by vehicles waiting to turn right into DNRC until 2.93 seconds before impact. 6. Witness evidence suggested that the right turn into DNRC is often backed up, resulting in queues in this central lane, making visibility worse. It was suggested this may be partly because of a security barrier in the DNRC grounds, which causes traffic to back up. This is likely to remain a busy junction when the DNRC opens. 7. If the oncoming vehicle (coming up the incline towards Rempstone) was a standard vehicle, rather than a lorry, visibility would be even worse, given that the cab of a lorry is higher up. 8. Similarly, if the vehicles waiting to turn right (into Home Farm and DNRC) were lorries or other large vehicles, such as ambulances, then visibility concerns would be heightened further. 9. There is an element of uncertainty at the junction – where both vehicles are turning right – there is no clear indication of who has right of way or how the vehicles should make their manoeuvres. 10. There is a solid double white line on the road just before the turning into Home Farm. This requires a driver turning right to make a sharp-angled turn. 11. The signs on either side of the junction warn oncoming traffic of the DNRC junction, but not the Home Farm junction. The fact that the Home Farm road is a private road should not reduce the need for adequate safety warnings to drivers. 12. I have been provided with a Nottinghamshire County Council Road Safety Audit regarding this junction, which is dated 21.9.15. This contains the following extract : During the site visit we were approached by a member of the public (apparently the owner) from Home Farm, opposite the Stanford Hall Access. He brought to our attention an issue which he felt had safety implications. Drivers intending to turn right into the Home Farm access have to wait on their side of the A6006 centre line to give way to oncoming traffic, as previously. They then have to turn across both the right turn lane and the Eastbound A6006 traffic lane. If a number of vehicles were occupying the right turn lane, he felt there would be potential to mask oncoming A6006 vehicles from view. Although the existing situation requires a right turner to wait in the westbound lane of the A6006, he also felt that he would be at greater risk of shunt type accidents than previously. 13. Sadly, this appears to have been the very risk that played a part in this collision. ”

    Source location

    Molly Jean Mills · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Develop alternative junction measures, including revisions to the central traffic island and associated road markings, if closure is not pursued.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Should it not prove possible or desirable to close the access, we are considering a package of alternative measures to assist drivers attempting to turn right at that location. This includes revisions to the position of the existing central traffic island, and its associated road markings, to make it easier for vehicles to gain access to the right-turn lane when approaching from the east. This should allow drivers to position their vehicles where they can wait more comfortably for a safe gap in the oncoming traffic.”

    Source location

    2018-0051-Response-by-Nottingham-County-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 8 June 2018

    Open published response

  5. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Malcolm Langford · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Malcolm Langford was walking with his wife when a vehicle, forced off course after a collision at the Highmoor Road junction, mounted the pavement and struck him. He sustained a non-survivable head injury and died the same day. Evidence at the inquest raised concerns about restricted visibility at the junction and the difficulty of safely emerging from Highmoor Road even when Albert Road appeared clear.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Restricted visibility at the Highmoor Road and Albert Road junction

    Wider context from the report

    “His evidence was that visibility at the junction is restricted, particularly when looking to the right, due to a house with a large fence and trees. The following four important points were elicited during the inquest: (1) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the front offside corner of a vehicle travelling north along Albert Road at a distance of about 35 metres; (2) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the full width of the front of a vehicle travelling north along Albert Road at a distance of about 24 metres; (3) if a vehicle is travelling at 30mph along Albert Road, it will take only 2.6 seconds from being completely out of view of drivers on Highmoor Road to reaching the junction. It will take only 1.8 seconds from the time that the front of the vehicle is visible until it reaches the junction; (4) given a typical rate of acceleration, it is not possible for a ‘normal’ driver in a ‘normal’ car to pull safely out of Highmoor Road junction even when Albert Road appears to be clear. The only way to negotiate the junction safely is to edge forward, maintaining a constant look-out. ”

    Source location

    Malcolm Langford · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The collision evidence indicates driver failure to stop, not the stop-line position; after stopping, drivers must edge forward to gain visibility.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst the views expressed by ████████, Forensic Collision Investigator for Thames Valley Police are appreciated they do not reflect the evidence provided by the police to Reading Borough Council and that collected (by us) through CCTV video surveys.”

    Source location

    Response from Reading Borough Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 May 2017

    Open published response

  6. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Thomas Moore Unsworth · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Thomas Moore Unsworth, aged 80, was a pedestrian crossing Great Moor Street in Bolton when he was hit by a left-turning bus on 28 January 2016 and died from a head injury. Evidence at the inquest raised concerns that the junction layout, building line and street furniture limited drivers’ views of pedestrians and created blind spots.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Restricted driver visibility of pedestrians at the junction

    Wider context from the report

    “1. During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- The driver of the bus that came into collision with Mr Unsworth gave evidence that the nature of the junction into which she was turning together with the position into which pedestrians are guided to cross the road meant that her view of such pedestrians was limited and in certain situations there was a “blind spot” in which she was unable to see pedestrians at all. Police Officers likewise gave evidence that as vehicles were manoeuvring round this junction their driver's views of pedestrians were limited by the building line and then restricted by street furniture. The area in question is presently under reconstruction giving an opportunity for these issues to be reviewed and addressed. ”

    Source location

    Thomas Moore Unsworth · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review collision CCTV, inquest witness statements and the junction through a multi-agency site visit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To consider and address your concerns, a meeting was convened on 24th March 2017 with relevant local authority officers and Greater Manchester Police Area Traffic Manager from the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, at which a review of the CCTV footage from the time of the collision was undertaken, all witness statements obtained for the purpose of the Inquest were considered and a site visit was undertaken.”

    Source location

    Response from Bolton Council
    Page 2 · response
    Published 5 March 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The reconstruction works cannot be extended to the crossing area because that area is outside the current site investigation scope.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “3. Vehicle Blind Spots and Re-construction works”

    Source location

    Response from Bolton Council
    Page 4 · response
    Published 5 March 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Relocating the pedestrian crossing would not improve visibility because the building line would continue to obstruct motorists’ line of sight.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Consideration has been given as to whether any risks would be reduced by alterations or relocation of the pedestrian crossing. Following investigation, I can confirm that the position of the crossing in relation to the junction is determined by position of the stop line, which in turn is determined by the swept path of vehicles turning into the junction. The distance between the stop line and the crossing must be between 2.0 - 3.0m and in this case the crossing could be re-located by approximately 1.0m towards Bradshawgate. However, this would have no benefit in terms of visibility between motorists and pedestrians as the building line would still obstruct the line of sight.”

    Source location

    Response from Bolton Council
    Page 4 · response
    Published 5 March 2017

    Open published response

  7. North Yorkshire (West)

    AI-generated summary

    Thomas Wallace · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 23 April 2016, Thomas Wallace died at the scene after his motorcycle collided with a car that had pulled out from a lane onto the A682 at Long Preston. Concerns included the restricted visibility at the junction, the wall alongside the road, limited and potentially misleading signage, and the positioning of national speed limit signs.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Restricted visibility of traffic at the junction

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The layout of the junction affords an extremely restricted view of traffic on the A682. ”

    Source location

    Thomas Wallace · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Obstructed visibility of traffic from a roadside wall

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) The solid wall running alongside the A682, contributes to the restricted view of the traffic on the A682. ”

    Source location

    Thomas Wallace · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  8. West Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Rebecca Leanne Shaw · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Rebecca Leanne Shaw was riding as a passenger on a motor scooter in Thailand when it was struck by an oncoming pickup truck, and she died from the injuries sustained. Evidence at the inquest raised concerns that the view of oncoming traffic was obstructed and that the road layout lacked a sufficiently deep central reservation, prompting concern about road safety at the location.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Obstructed visibility of oncoming traffic at a road bend

    Wider context from the report

    “During the inquest I heard evidence to suggest that ████████ view of the oncoming traffic to her left was obstructed by a road sign and trees, itself on a bend, before commenced her right turn from the entrance of Soi Khuan Yang Charoen. I also heard that the lay out of the road had no central reservation deep enough to full accommodate a vehicle ”

    Source location

    Rebecca Leanne Shaw · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  9. Mid Kent and Medway

    AI-generated summary

    Deborah Roberts and Marshall Roberts · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 1 July 2014, Deborah Roberts stopped her car on the Sheppey Crossing road bridge and it was struck from behind by a van; Deborah and her eight-year-old son, Marshall Roberts, died. Concerns included repeated rear-end collisions involving stationary vehicles, limited forward visibility and high vehicle speeds on the bridge, and the fact that the speed limit remained 70 mph despite a recommendation to reduce it to 50 mph.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient forward visibility caused by the geometry of the Sheppey Road Bridge

    Wider context from the report

    “• Accident data reveals that in addition to the collision subject of this inquest which resulted in two fatalities, there have been a number of rear end collisions on the Sheppey Road Bridge associated with stationary vehicles being struck including a multiple vehicle collision in September 2013 • A review of the safety of the Sheppey Road Bridge published in February 2015 has concluded that a combination of the geometry of the bridge affecting the forward visibility available to drivers and the high speeds of vehicles travelling over the bridge which has a 70 mph limit impacts on the safety of the bridge. The review recommended a reduction in the speed limit to 50 mph to mitigate the safety concerns • The speed limit for the bridge remains at 70 mph ”

    Source location

    Deborah Roberts and Marshall Roberts · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Complete and publish a safety review of the A249 Swale Crossing, focusing particularly on the speed limit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “a) Following the tragic deaths of Deborah and Marshall Roberts, a review of safety of the A249 Swale Crossing was commissioned, with a particular emphasis on the speed limit (“the ARUP review”). The ARUP review (published in February 2015) concluded that a combination of geometry of the bridge affecting the forward visibility available to drivers and the high average speeds of vehicles travelling over the bridge had an impact upon the safety of the bridge. The report offered evidence that these high average speeds were created by those driving in excess of the posted speed limit which takes the subject of reduced Stopping Sight Distance outside the scope of DMRB.”

    Source location

    Response from Highways
    Page 3 · response
    Published 11 June 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The bridge design and maintenance comply with DMRB, achieving scheme objectives and an acceptable balance between safety, cost and economic growth.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “a) Highways England considers that the bridge is designed and built and is being maintained in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (“DMRB”) and that it has delivered the scheme objectives, as set out at Public Inquiry. The Post Opening Project Evaluation report dated July 2012 reiterated these as follows:”

    Source location

    Response from Highways
    Page 1 · response
    Published 11 June 2015

    Open published response

  10. West Somerset

    AI-generated summary

    William Dennis FRANCE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    William Dennis France died on 21 March 2013 when his car was struck by a high-speed train while he attempted to cross Athelney Railway Crossing with the automatic half barriers down. The barriers had remained down for an unusually prolonged period due to an earlier engineering train movement and signalling issues. Concerns included obstructed visibility for motor vehicle drivers approaching the crossing and the position of the crossing telephone beyond the pedestrian stop line.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Obstructed visibility for motor vehicle drivers approaching the crossing

    Wider context from the report

    “(1)      Motor vehicle drivers approaching the crossing from either side have to go up a rise and their visibility towards Taunton is obstructed in part by the barrier controls and the road crossing which is also at an angle. ”

    Source location

    William Dennis FRANCE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026