Recurring concern
Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 3 Feb 2014•Latest report 26 Mar 2026
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
- Individual concerns
- 51
- Date range
- 2014–2026
- Stated actions
- 58
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
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.
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.
-
Concerns raised1
60mph speed limit on the Station Road approach to the junction for unfamiliar drivers
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 concernsEach 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.6
-
Position
Highways England is responsible for investigating accidents and developing safety measures on the A46.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County Council
-
Position
Side-road approach measures are not usually effective for restart accidents; main-road measures are considered more appropriate.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County Council -
Position
There is no evidence that excessive approach speed contributes significantly to these accidents, and lowering the speed limit would be ineffective.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County Council -
Position
A lower speed limit is not considered appropriate because legal procedures, implementation costs and delay could outweigh its arguable benefits.
Stated by Nottinghamshire County Council -
Position
No speed-limit change was considered necessary because vehicles entered the junction at very low speeds or were stationary.
Stated by Nottinghamshire Police -
Position
Nottinghamshire County Council is solely responsible for safety concerns concerning the Station Road approach to the A46 junction.
Stated by A-One+
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of an advance warning sign for the approaching left bend
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Road danger from driving at 60 mph on blind bends and cambers
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 concernsEach 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
Attend the collision site with police and assess the highway layout, signs, road markings, and condition.
Stated by Island Roads Services Limited -
Action
Monitor vehicle speeds to record current traffic speeds at the collision location.
Stated by Island Roads Services Limited
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
-
Position
The Isle of Wight Council, as local highway authority, retains authority to implement reduced speed limits and install new road signs.
Stated by Island Roads Services Limited
-
Position
No additional traffic-calming or engineering measures were considered necessary at the collision location.
Stated by Island Roads Services Limited -
Position
Existing signs and measures were considered adequate because speeds were below 60 mph and the collision record did not indicate frequent speed-related collisions.
Stated by Island Roads Services Limited -
Position
Additional signs or a reduced speed limit were considered unlikely to measurably affect collision rates, so limited resources should not be allocated to them.
Stated by Island Roads Services Limited
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to apply the 40mph speed restriction prior to the bend
Responses linked to these concernsEach 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 assessing a proposed reduction of the relevant A630 speed limit to 40mph through the required statutory process.
Stated by City of Doncaster Council
-
Concerns raised1
Inappropriateness of a 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road with limited driver visibility
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 concernsEach 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
The 50mph speed limit is considered entirely appropriate for this section of road despite concerns about visibility and reaction time.
Stated by Gateshead Borough Council
-
Concerns raised1
Lack of prominent signage communicating the 20 mph speed limit on London Bridge
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 concernsEach 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
Install an additional pair of 20 mph repeater signs on the north side of London Bridge.
Stated by Transport for London
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Existing repeater-sign arrangements comply with national standards and were considered sufficient to remind drivers that the speed limit remained 20mph.
Stated by Transport for London
-
Concerns raised2
Failure to reduce the Sheppey Road Bridge speed limit from 70 mph
High vehicle speeds on the Sheppey Road Bridge
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 concernsEach 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 and publish a safety review of the A249 Swale Crossing, focusing particularly on the speed limit.
Stated by National Highways -
Action
Implement a temporary 50-mile-per-hour speed restriction along the specified A249 approach roads and crossing in both directions.
Stated by National Highways
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Kent Police should actively assist Highways England and SRL in achieving compliance with the posted speed limit over the crossing.
Stated by National Highways
-
Concerns raised1
50 mph speed limit at the incident junction approaches
This report raised 11 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to provide appropriately located and informative warning signage for road subsidence
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 concernsEach 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
Erect and retain temporary uneven-road signage, with regular inspection and review.
Stated by Lincolnshire County Council -
Action
Provide and sign an advisory 40 mph speed limit on Fodderdyke Bank.
Stated by Lincolnshire County Council
-
Concerns raised1
Excessive vehicle speeds on bends at the road location
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 concernsEach 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
Erect additional series-of-bends warning signs on both approaches.
Stated by Powys County Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Existing engineering measures are considered sufficient to meet the authority’s duty, and guidance makes a lower speed limit inappropriate for this individual hazard.
Stated by Powys County Council
Data last updated 7 September 2026