First reported 3 Feb 2014•Latest report 26 Mar 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes speed-limit setting, warnings, placement and traffic-calming controls specifically tied to hazardous junctions, bends, crossings, bridges or comparable road locations.
Not included
General speeding enforcement without an identified hazardous road location
Road-design hazards for which vehicle-speed control is not the identified deficient control
Reports
46
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
51
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2014–2026
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
58
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
Lincolnshire County Council4
Durham County Council3
Dorset County Council2
Gateshead Borough Council2
London Borough of Havering2
Office of the Chief Coroner2
Powys County Council2
Recipient name withheld2
Staffordshire County Council2
A-One+1
Bath and North East Somerset Council1
Cambridgeshire County Council1
City of Doncaster Council1
Conwy County Borough Council1
English county council14
National road infrastructure body8
English metropolitan district council7
English unitary authority7
London borough council3
Welsh county borough council3
Type not available3
Coronial office2
Road infrastructure contractor2
Welsh county council2
Company1
Local authority1
Ministerial department1
Police force1
Public transport authority1
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.
Northumberland
Concerns raised1
Lack of advance warning signage for a severe bend
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
Review the site and consider options, including advance warning measures, to improve bend visibility and driver awareness.
Stated by Northumberland County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 7 April 2026.
Action
Prioritise identified road-safety improvements for implementation within Quarter 2 of the 2026–2027 financial year.
Stated by Northumberland County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 7 April 2026.
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
Failure to set a speed limit that provides sufficient reaction time at the A684 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.4
Action
Upgrade approach signing and install STOP signs, approach lane delineation markings, and transverse yellow markings at the junction.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 February 2026.
Action
Complete the A684 safety improvement package, including centre lines, road studs, rumble strips, high-friction surfacing and additional SLOW markings.
Stated by Westmorland and Furness CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 February 2026.
Action
Conduct a full speed review of the A684 using traffic data collected with the Safety Camera Unit.
Stated by Westmorland and Furness CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 February 2026.
Action
Undertake the commissioned independent Engineering Safety Study to review existing conditions, completed works and further engineering, enforcement, educational and speed-limit measures.
Stated by Westmorland and Furness CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 February 2026.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Changes to the National Speed Limit on the A684 are the responsibility of Westmorland and Furness Council, not National Highways.
Stated by National HighwaysRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
A reduced speed limit cannot be proposed without completing the full analytical process required by national guidance.
Stated by Westmorland and Furness CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
North Wales (East and Central)
Concerns raised1
Failure to set a speed limit that accounts for the dangerous junction at Waterloo Hill
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
Complete a route speed-limit review for the A548 between Llanfair TH and Llangernyw under national guidance.
Stated by Conwy County Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
Action
Advertise the proposed A548 40mph speed-limit reduction as a Traffic Regulation Order and undertake the required consultation and legal process.
Stated by Conwy County Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 December 2025.
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Concerns raised1
Absence of speed enforcement on the A3083 between RNAS Culdrose and Helston
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.
North Wales (East and Central)
Concerns raised1
Inadequate speed control for traffic approaching 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.2
Action
Liaise with Cheshire West and Chester Council on reducing the cross-border road speed limit.
Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
Action
Commit in principle to reducing the road speed limit through a joint Traffic Regulation Order consultation process.
Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 April 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Road-marking alterations will not be commissioned until the speed-limit Traffic Regulation Order consultation outcome is determined.
Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Newcastle and North Tyneside
Concerns raised1
Unsafe 40 miles per hour speed limit for the road stretch
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
Implement an experimental traffic order reducing the speed limit from 40 to 30 mph across approximately 1.5 km including the collision area.
Stated by Gateshead Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 January 2025.
Action
Monitor traffic speeds and investigate any further road traffic collisions during the experimental order period.
Stated by Gateshead Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 January 2025.
Action
Collect public comments during the first six months on whether the speed-reduction scheme is working.
Stated by Gateshead Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 January 2025.
Action
Review public comments and decide how to proceed with the scheme.
Stated by Gateshead Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 January 2025.
Oxfordshire
Concerns raised1
Potentially excessive 30 mph speed limit on a pedestrian-heavy town-centre road
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
Allocate funding through the 2025/26 Vision Zero road safety programme for proposed speed-limit improvement measures.
Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 January 2025.
Action
Design and seek approval for a proposed 20mph speed limit at the collision location through the 2025/26 programme.
Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 January 2025.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
The current 30mph speed limit is considered appropriate and sufficient until any approved 20mph scheme is implemented.
Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised1
Inappropriately high speed limit at the bridge
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
Review the road layout and bend-related safety concerns through a highways site visit.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2024.
Action
Analyse historical personal-injury collision data for the right-hand turn and bridge location.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2024.
Action
Assess general traffic speeds at the location.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 August 2024.
Action
Routinely monitor reported personal-injury collision data to identify accident clusters and trends.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 August 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
Position
Recorded collision evidence does not indicate excessive or inappropriate speed or a collision pattern at the right-hand turn.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
Existing bend, carriageway, electronic and reflective warning features are considered sufficient to warn drivers of the approaching bend.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
A lower speed limit is not necessarily safer because motorists may interpret it as a recommended target speed and increase risk.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Concerns raised1
Unsafe speed limit for the road design and condition
This report raised 6 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
Implement a 30mph speed limit on the single-track section of Puddock Road with 40mph buffer zones.
Stated by Cambridgeshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Lack of a speed limit for vehicles using the service road
This report raised 4 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.2
Position
The council cannot legally impose an enforceable speed limit because the service road is not a highway.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
There is no evidence that excessive speed caused the accident or that maximum-speed signs would reduce the risk of future deaths.
Stated by Walsall Borough CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes speed-limit setting, warnings, placement and traffic-calming controls specifically tied to hazardous junctions, bends, crossings, bridges or comparable road locations.
