Recurring concern

Inadequate control of recurring collision risks at hazardous road locations

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 13 Jan 2014•Latest report 6 May 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes reports identifying a recurring or established collision hazard at a road location together with inadequate, absent or ineffective dedicated controls, including repeated collision patterns, inadequate visibility, hazardous layout, insufficient separation, warnings, markings, crossings or comparable road-safety measures.

Not included

Excludes isolated collisions or factual road accidents where no recurring hazard or deficient road-safety control is identified.
Excludes generic highway maintenance, lighting, signage, drainage or road-design deficiencies unless they are directly linked to recurring collision risk at a hazardous road location.
Excludes condition-specific road hazards already bounded by a more specific supported concern, such as slippery steep bends, inadequate road sight distance or pedestrian-crossing safety, when that narrower hazard is the asserted shared unsafe condition.
Excludes driver misconduct or individual road-user error where no continuing hazard or control deficiency at the road location is identified.

Reports: 20
Individual concerns: 23
Date range: 2014–2025
Stated actions: 70

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

National Highways6

Department for Transport4

Office of the Chief Coroner4

Apple (UK) Limited2

Google UK Limited2

Recipient name withheld2

Slough Borough Council2

TomTom2

Transport for London2

Avon and Somerset Constabulary1

Cornwall Council1

Daughter of the deceased1

Derbyshire County Council1

Dorset Council1

Island Roads Services Limited1

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.

6 May2025
Dorset
Concerns raised1
1. Hazardous road layout at Loscombe 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.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Dorset Council, as the traffic authority, is responsible for decisions about road design, speed limits, traffic calming and road network management.
  Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Charlotte Katie Mae Avis · 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

Charlotte Katie Mae Avis died at the scene after her car was struck head-on by a vehicle that had lost control and crossed into the opposite carriageway on 1 December 2022. The report raises concerns about the layout of Loscombe Crossroads and the number of collisions and fatalities at the site, with concern that future deaths could occur.

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
Hazardous road layout at Loscombe Crossroads
Wider context from the report
“(1) Evidence has been provided that between 01.01.2014 and 24.03.2025 there have been 8 road traffic collisions at the site of Charlotte’s death which is referred to as Loscombe Crossroads, near Sherborne, Dorset. Those collisions have resulted in slight, serious and fatal injuries being sustained by those involved. There have been 4 fatalities from 3 of the collisions in a 4 year period. These fatalities occurred on 21.01.2020, 01.12.22 and 20.02.24.The last of these fatalities occurred after Charlotte’s death. (2) Although the speed of the road was reduced by Dorset Council on 11th October 2024 from 70mph to 60mph, I have concerns around the layout of the road and the number of collisions in the area, and that there could be future deaths that occur. ”
Source location
Charlotte Katie Mae Avis · 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
Dorset Council, as the traffic authority, is responsible for decisions about road design, speed limits, traffic calming and road network management.

Verbatim wording from the response
“You expressed concerns regarding the layout of the road as a factor in the collision. Responsibility for making decisions about the roads under its care rests with the traffic authority, based on its knowledge of the area and taking into account local needs and circumstances. Local authorities, in this case Dorset Council, are free to make their own decisions about the design of the roads and streets under their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation. This includes setting local speed limits and introducing traffic calming measures such as speed cameras and speed activated warning signs.”

Source location
Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 19 May 2025
Open published response
6 Feb2025
Northamptonshire
Concerns raised1
1. Hazardous difficulty manoeuvring at the junction of St Johns Road, Tiffield and the A43 Northamptonshire
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Carry out planned summer 2025 minor surfacing works, including refreshed eastbound road markings and reflective road studs through the junction.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated planned
2. Action
  Investigate including vegetation clearance in the summer 2025 works to improve visibility at the junction.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated in progress
3. Action
  Develop and construct the 2026 A43 renewals scheme, including carriageway resurfacing, line-marking repainting and replacement reflective road studs through to St John’s Road junction.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated in progress
1. Action
  Investigate potential junction improvements, such as signage, as part of the A43 renewals scheme scoping.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated in progress
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The junction does not rank highly as a safety problem location, so detailed investigations for a potential safety improvement scheme have not been prioritised.
  Stated by National HighwaysDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Jane BENNETT · 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

Mrs Bennett was involved in a road traffic collision at the junction of St Johns Road, Tiffield and the A43 on 13 March 2024 and was later confirmed deceased on 15 March 2024. The report raises concern that the junction is very difficult to manoeuvre and that, without changes, further accidents or fatalities are likely.

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
Hazardous difficulty manoeuvring at the junction of St Johns Road, Tiffield and the A43 Northamptonshire
Wider context from the report
“The junction of St Johns Road, Tiffield and the A43 Northamptonshire is very difficult to manoeuvre. Witnesses who attended at the inquest gave evidence to the effect that unless some changes are made there are likely to be further accidents/or fatalities. I concur with this view. ”
Source location
Jane BENNETT · 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
Carry out planned summer 2025 minor surfacing works, including refreshed eastbound road markings and reflective road studs through the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In advance of the 2026/2027 planned carriageway renewals scheme, National Highways is planning minor surfacing works for Summer 2025. This will include refreshing road markings and reflective road studs on the A43 eastbound mainline through the junction. We are currently investigating the possibility of including the vegetation clearance in these works.”

Source location
Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 7 February 2025
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
Investigate including vegetation clearance in the summer 2025 works to improve visibility at the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In advance of the 2026/2027 planned carriageway renewals scheme, National Highways is planning minor surfacing works for Summer 2025. This will include refreshing road markings and reflective road studs on the A43 eastbound mainline through the junction. We are currently investigating the possibility of including the vegetation clearance in these works.”

Source location
Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 7 February 2025
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
Develop and construct the 2026 A43 renewals scheme, including carriageway resurfacing, line-marking repainting and replacement reflective road studs through to St John’s Road junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“National Highways currently have a renewals scheme programmed for 2026/2027 which includes resurfacing, road markings, road studs, vegetation clearance, and drainage for sections of the A43 including St John’s junction.”

Source location
Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 7 February 2025
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
Investigate potential junction improvements, such as signage, as part of the A43 renewals scheme scoping.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The A43 renewals scheme is currently being developed and scheduled for construction in the later part of 2026. This scheme involves resurfacing of the A43 eastbound and westbound carriageway, repainting of the line markings and replacing the reflective road studs from the M1 motorway through to St John’s Road junction. While the physical layout of the junction will not change, as part of our scoping we are investigating potential improvements for the junction of St John’s Road, such as signage.”

Source location
Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 7 February 2025
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 junction does not rank highly as a safety problem location, so detailed investigations for a potential safety improvement scheme have not been prioritised.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the fatal incident National Highways has referred to this assessment list and the junction of the A43 / St John’s Road does not appear within the top 100 sites in the Midlands. Although this data does not include the recent fatality it does reveal that this junction has a relatively good safety record in relation to the Midlands trunk and motorway network, with only two ‘slight’ injury collisions recorded here within that 5 year period. Based on this, the junction of the A43 and St John’s Road does not rank highly as a safety problem location, and for this reason we have not prioritised this junction as a location to undertake detailed investigations for a potential safety improvement scheme.”

Source location
Response from National Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 7 February 2025
Open published response
26 Nov2024
Devon, Plymouth and Torbay
Concerns raised1
1. Roadside mature trees creating an immediate vehicle-collision hazard
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 2
1. Action
  Initiate the statutory process to extend the 30mph speed limit along approximately 800 metres of the A374 Embankment Road.
  Stated by Plymouth City CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Remove specified trees beside the north-east carriageway and reconstruct approximately 450 metres of the carriageway and footway.
  Stated by Plymouth City CouncilStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Trees on the south-west carriageway are not considered a significant collision risk because of existing lower speeds, junction conditions and a safety camera.
  Stated by Plymouth City CouncilDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

JAY STUART WHITING · 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

Jay Whiting, aged 21, died on 7 January 2023 after sustaining fatal injuries when the vehicle he was driving left the road and collided with a mature tree in Plymouth. The report raises safety concerns about mature trees positioned immediately beside Embankment Road, including their potential danger to vehicles and obstruction of pavement users, and notes that Plymouth City Council had not formally assessed the risks or whether action was warranted.

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
Roadside mature trees creating an immediate vehicle-collision hazard
Wider context from the report
“Although the determinations at the inquest found there to be a number of relevant factors which contributed to the fatal road traffic collision and, therefore, to Jay Whiting’s death (as set out in paragraph 4, above), one such contributing factor was that the vehicle being driven by Jay Whiting left the road and immediately collided with a mature tree (one of many such trees which line Embankment Road, Plymouth). Embankment Road (or at least this particular stretch) is a dual carriageway and a main route into the city centre of Plymouth. As part of the investigation and inquest process, photos were taken of the scene by forensic collision investigating officers, and these showed the large trees to be adjacent to the dual carriageway, situated on a pavement only a matter of inches from the kerb. It is clear from these photos that, firstly, any vehicle that, in whatever situation, has cause to leave the road and mount the kerb is very likely to immediately collide with one of the mature trees and, secondly, the size of the trees (the circumference of their trunks) make it difficult for pedestrians, or those using mobility aides, to safely walk/move along the pavement without having to step into the road. Evidence was heard at the inquest from Motor Police Constable ████████ road casualty reduction officer for the Plymouth area (employed by Devon and Cornwall Police). MPC ████████’s unequivocal opinion was that the presence of these mature trees at this location (both on the northbound and southbound carriageways on Embankment Road, but particularly the stretch of trees at the location of this fatal incident on the northbound carriageway) is frankly dangerous from a road safety perspective. MPC ████████ stated that, in addition to this fatal accident in 2023, there was a fatal accident in 2008, where a vehicle collided with one of the trees along the same stretch of the northbound carriageway, resulting in the deaths of two occupants of the vehicle. MPC ████████ was therefore concerned that there had been three deaths arising in very similar circumstances at the same location, involving trauma brought about by vehicular collision with one of the mature trees. MPC ████████ stated that he was not aware of any other location in Plymouth where trees lining the road had been considered a contributory factor in a fatal vehicle collision. Owing to these concerns, MPC ████████ made a request that consideration is given by Plymouth City Council to removing the trees at this location. Evidence was also heard at the inquest from ████████ senior traffic engineer for street services (employed by Plymouth City Council). ████████ stated that he was aware of the concerns held by Devon and Cornwall Police regarding the mature trees and that, personally, he would also like the trees to be removed. ████████ stated that the removal of trees in Plymouth was currently ‘a political topic’ and, for the trees on Embankment Road to be removed, a decision would need to be taken justifying the use of scarce local authority public funding. ████████ accepted that there had, thus far, been no formal risk assessment or evaluation carried out by Plymouth City Council as to whether the safety concerns identified warranted resources being used to remove the trees. ████████ further accepted that this process should now take place and that he had been waiting for the outcome of this inquest before deciding upon appropriate next steps. Owing to there being clear safety concerns regarding the continued presence of these mature trees on Embankment Road, Plymouth, in my view these need to be formally considered (it is for Plymouth City Council to consider issues of risk and cost/benefit analysis of any proposed action/inaction) with a view to determining what, if anything, should happen to the trees. ”
Source location
JAY STUART WHITING · 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
Initiate the statutory process to extend the 30mph speed limit along approximately 800 metres of the A374 Embankment Road.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1. Implementation of a process to extend the 30mph Speed Limit on both sides of the A374 Embankment Road from its current terminal north-east of Stanley place to a point north-east of the Rowing Club, approximately 800 metres. This will involve the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order (“TRO”) and as such will be subject to a statutory process which will include a statutory consultation followed by a formal decision to be taken in accordance with the Council’s constitution. If following this process the TRO is agreed, it is envisaged that the lower speed limit will be introduced at the beginning of April 2025.”

Source location
Response from Plymouth City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 December 2024
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
Remove specified trees beside the north-east carriageway and reconstruct approximately 450 metres of the carriageway and footway.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2. We plan to remove a number of trees adjacent to the north-east bound carriageway between the Glendinning Depot and Arnold’s Point. The works for tree”

Source location
Response from Plymouth City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 December 2024
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
Trees on the south-west carriageway are not considered a significant collision risk because of existing lower speeds, junction conditions and a safety camera.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As part of this process, the City Council has considered removal of the trees sited on the south-west bound carriageway. These trees have no history of involvement in collisions with vehicles and are also planted in a way which does not block the adjacent footway/cycleway. This section of road is in-bound towards the City Centre and currently has lower traffic speeds due to the junction with Lanhydrock Rd and the presence of a Safety Camera in advance of the junction. As the speed limit will now be dropped to 30mph with a Speed Camera in place, it is not considered that the trees on this side of the road present a significant risk and will therefore remain in place. Given the constraint on Council budgets, work on which present a significant risk of collisions must be prioritised.”

Source location
Response from Plymouth City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2024
Open published response
23 Aug2024
Milton Keynes
Concerns raised1
1. Slip-road geometry allowing wrong-way vehicles to enter and build up considerable speed
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.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Complete a full safety review of the junction against the current Wrong Way Driving: Mitigation Toolkit.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated completed
2. Action
  Undertake further work to assess junction capacity and whether the A5 off-slip bell-mouth width can be reduced with hatched markings.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated planned
3. Action
  Reinspect the site after the incident and investigate whether an immediate safety hazard exists.
  Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilStated completed
1. Action
  Review the junction situation later as part of the planned work programme.
  Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilStated planned
AI-generated summary

Amal Mohamed AHMED · 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

Amal Mohamed Ahmed died at the scene after entering the A5 southbound off slip road in the wrong direction and colliding head-on with another vehicle. The other vehicle’s driver later died in hospital, and a passenger suffered life-threatening injuries. The principal concern was that inadequate, poorly positioned and poorly visible signage and the unlit, wide junction allowed drivers to enter the slip road incorrectly; other drivers were observed making the same manoeuvre.

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
Slip-road geometry allowing wrong-way vehicles to enter and build up considerable speed
Wider context from the report
“The exit point of the A5 "off" slip road at the Little Brickhill junction is wide. The signage indicating No Entry appears to be inadequate as there are two No Entry signs which are widely spaced at the junction. One is positioned to appear to forbid entry to the road over the bridge leading over the A5 and does not obviously relate to the slip road. The second is positioned such that it obliquely faces the road over the bridge and would not be visible to a driver turning right onto the slip road until they had completed the manoeuvre placing them at risk. There is a No Right Turn sign as the junction is approached. There is also No Entry in large white letters at the mouth of the slip road junction, however, this may be (1) obscured by vehicles leaving the slip road and (2) the junction is unlit and was said by a witness as being "pitch black". After the collision attention police officers saw three further vehicles perform exactly the same manoeuvre as Ms Ahmed and attempt to travel down the slip road in the wrong direction. Local residents have contacted police and claimed that it is a very common occurrence for drivers to mistakenly travel down the slip road in the wrong direction. The slip road is long and allows for the build up of considerable speed in turn facilitating what the police describe as a high energy impact. Following the collision, large temporary No Entry signs were positioned at the slip road junction. They were quickly removed apparently because the original signs were deemed to comply with necessary regulations. That seems wholly irrelevant to me because drivers are clearly commonly not seeing the signs because of the large numbers who mistakenly drive the wrong way onto the slip road. In my opinion, consideration should be given to alternative arrangements to prevent vehicles entering and travelling along the slip road in the wrong direction. ”
Source location
Amal Mohamed AHMED · 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 a full safety review of the junction against the current Wrong Way Driving: Mitigation Toolkit.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The site visit has informed a full safety review of the junction, including an assessment of the junction against the latest version of National Highways’ Wrong Way Driving: Mitigation Toolkit (v1.2 January 2021). The junction had previously been assessed against the previous version of the toolkit (first issued in 2017).”

Source location
Response from Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 29 December 2023
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
Undertake further work to assess junction capacity and whether the A5 off-slip bell-mouth width can be reduced with hatched markings.

Verbatim wording from the response
“○ Width of the junction bell mouth at the end of the A5 off slip – the A5 off slip and junction bell mouth is two lanes wide. The bell mouth is effectively widened by the concrete overrun area along the eastern edge of the bell mouth. Reducing the width of the junction with hatched road markings may increase the conspicuity of the ‘No Entry’ measures. Further work will be undertaken to understand the capacity of the junction and whether the junction width can be reduced.”

Source location
Response from Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2023
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
Reinspect the site after the incident and investigate whether an immediate safety hazard exists.

Verbatim wording from the response
“City highways officials visited the site on 20 November after the fatal incident with Thames Valley Police (TVP). TVP then conveyed a video call with MKCC and National Highways on 21 November and National Highways took subsequent actions on their junction. We would”

Source location
Response from Milton Keynes City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 December 2023
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
Review the junction situation later as part of the planned work programme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We have another ‘Report-It’ made on 21 November 2023 which was made following the incident. The same inspector visited the site again and again found no immediate safety hazard based on condition (of the asset) and highlighted to the resident on 13 January 2024 that we have investigated and intend to review the situation at a later date as part of our planned work programme. A standardised response was sent to the customer.”

Source location
Response from Milton Keynes City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2023
Open published response
22 Aug2024
Milton Keynes
Concerns raised1
1. Failure of commonly used satnav applications to provide safe verbal directions 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 7
1. Action
  Review navigation instructions and simulate speed scenarios near the junction.
  Stated by TomTom International B.V.Stated completed
2. Action
  Implement safeguards that time verbal commands closer to the exit and after the off-slip road.
  Stated by TomTom International B.V.Stated completed
3. Action
  Deploy temporary ‘Do not follow Sat Nav’ and customer-information signs at the junction.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated completed
1. Action
  Investigate Sat Nav routing and liaise with Google Maps, Apple Maps and WAZE regarding potentially confusing audible instructions.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated in progress
2. Action
  Liaised with National Highways and reviewed dashcam footage of the junction to inform investigation of Google Maps audio guidance.
  Stated by Google UK LimitedStated completed
3. Action
  Investigate and develop improvements to the timing of Google Maps audio guidance.
  Stated by Google UK LimitedStated in progress
4. Action
  Add special voice guidance instructing drivers to continue straight at the overpass and turn right onto the A5 toward Milton Keynes, Bletchley.
  Stated by Apple (UK) LimitedStated planned
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  It is not clear whether Google Maps was involved in the incidents described in the reports.
  Stated by Google UK LimitedDisputes the concern
1. Position
  Maps had no data or routing error that contributed to the deaths.
  Stated by Apple (UK) LimitedDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Tracey Julie HAYBITTLE · 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

Tracey Julie Haybittle died at the John Radcliffe Hospital after a head-on collision when another driver entered the wrong slip road at the Little Brickhill junction. The report raised concerns that verbal commands from commonly used satnav applications could confuse and direct drivers down the wrong slip road into oncoming traffic, and that this occurred frequently despite remedial measures.

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
Failure of commonly used satnav applications to provide safe verbal directions at the junction
Wider context from the report
“I have made observations regarding the slip road at this junction in my initial pre-Inquest Report To Prevent Future Deaths dated the 21st December 2023 in respect of the linked case of Amal Mohamed Ahmood. National Highways undertook a number of immediate remedial measures to try to prevent drivers turning and travelling the wrong way down this slip road, including narrowing the "mouth" of the slip road to one lane, placement of very large temporary "No Entry" signs and placement of signs indicating "Do Not Use Satnav" at the site. CCTV monitoring of driver behaviour was commenced. Police activity and monitoring by National Highways showed that despite these measures, drivers were still turning early and attempting to drive the wrong way down the slip road. Further enquiries by the police and information volunteered by members of the public who made the same incorrect manoeuvre led to the finding that while the visual map display on commonly used satnav applications at this junction displayed the correct information, the verbal commands gave information likely to confuse and direct drivers down the wrong slip road into the path of oncoming traffic. This was observed to happen frequently. ”
Source location
Tracey Julie HAYBITTLE · 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
Review navigation instructions and simulate speed scenarios near the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the report, we reviewed our navigation systems’ verbal instructions provided near the junction at hand. We have simulated different scenarios, including speed variations of 60mph and 30mph, to better understand how our navigation systems presented instructions based on driver speed. The scenarios assumed that the driver would either (i) maintain maximum speed until the junction; or (ii) slow down when approaching it. The outcome of the review revealed that instructions were given either (i) right when passing by the off-slip road; or (ii) after passing by the off-slip road, when on the overpass towards the exit.”

Source location
Response from TomTom
Page 1 · response
Published 30 August 2024
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
Implement safeguards that time verbal commands closer to the exit and after the off-slip road.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As part of our ongoing efforts to enhance road safety, we recently implemented additional safeguards, to limit drivers’ confusion where possible, regardless of their speed behavior on the road, by timing the verbal commands closer to the actual exit, and in any event after passing the off-slip road. However, please note that in order for these changes to be effective and visible by end users, they need to use the latest map and therefore in certain circumstances need to update their systems/devices.”

Source location
Response from TomTom
Page 1 · response
Published 30 August 2024
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
Deploy temporary ‘Do not follow Sat Nav’ and customer-information signs at the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Again, on the 29 April 2024, the location was visited by National Highways and Thames Valley Police (Traffic Management Officer). During the site visit, a vehicle was observed to attempt to turn right into the slip road against the No-Entry signing. The driver was flagged down and aborted the turn. On speaking to the driver, they said that the Sat Nav app said to turn right. This raised concerns that Sat Nav instructions may have been leading to driver confusion.”

Source location
Response from National Highways
Page 5 · response
Published 30 August 2024
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
Investigate Sat Nav routing and liaise with Google Maps, Apple Maps and WAZE regarding potentially confusing audible instructions.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Investigations have been undertaken to understand the potential influence Sat Nav instructions are having on driver behaviour. Route drives were undertaken using various Sat Nav apps (Google Maps, Apple Maps and WAZE) to review route guidance given to drivers.”

Source location
Response from National Highways
Page 6 · response
Published 30 August 2024
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
Liaised with National Highways and reviewed dashcam footage of the junction to inform investigation of Google Maps audio guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• We have liaised with National Highways and reviewed their helpful dashcam footage of the relevant junction. This has assisted our product and engineering teams in carefully investigating the audio guidance provided by Google Maps. Our teams are working on improvements to the timing of the audio guidance.”

Source location
Response from Google
Page 2 · response
Published 30 August 2024
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
Investigate and develop improvements to the timing of Google Maps audio guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• We have liaised with National Highways and reviewed their helpful dashcam footage of the relevant junction. This has assisted our product and engineering teams in carefully investigating the audio guidance provided by Google Maps. Our teams are working on improvements to the timing of the audio guidance.”

Source location
Response from Google
Page 2 · response
Published 30 August 2024
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
Add special voice guidance instructing drivers to continue straight at the overpass and turn right onto the A5 toward Milton Keynes, Bletchley.

Verbatim wording from the response
“However, to ensure we were following the very best approach we are taking an additional measure to add the following special voice guidance for drivers heading past the A5 offramp toward the A5 onramp, which we intend will be live by the start of next week. - Drivers heading past the A5 offramp toward the A5 onramp would be instructed to “Continue straight at the overpass” (that will happen as they are travelling west toward the offramp). - While on the overpass, drivers would be instructed to “Turn right onto A5 toward Milton Keynes, Bletchley.””

Source location
Response from Apple
Page 1 · response
Published 30 August 2024
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
It is not clear whether Google Maps was involved in the incidents described in the reports.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We recognise that the cases identified in the reports are tragic. While it is not clear whether Google Maps was involved, we have carefully considered whether there are improvements we can make to Google Maps to help ensure that similar incidents do not occur in future. We have therefore taken the following measures:”

Source location
Response from Google
Page 2 · response
Published 30 August 2024
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
Maps had no data or routing error that contributed to the deaths.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We immediately investigated the concerns raised and found no data or routing error on Maps which would have contributed to these tragic events.”

Source location
Response from Apple
Page 1 · response
Published 30 August 2024
Open published response
22 Jun2023
Sunderland
Concerns raised1
1. Continuing risk to cyclists in the collision area
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Undertake programmed works to reduce the stone wall height and improve visibility at the lane access.
  Stated by South Tyneside Borough CouncilStated in progress
2. Action
  Complete the Traffic Regulation Order process and consultation for proposed parking restrictions around the collision area and nearby junctions.
  Stated by South Tyneside Borough CouncilStated planned
3. Action
  Complete the Traffic Regulation Order process and consultation for the proposed 20mph speed limit on Lizard Lane.
  Stated by South Tyneside Borough CouncilStated planned
1. Action
  Complete the formal legal notification process for proposed additional traffic calming on Lizard Lane.
  Stated by South Tyneside Borough CouncilStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Implementation of measures requiring legal consultation or notification cannot be guaranteed because proceeding would pre-judge the consultation outcome.
  Stated by South Tyneside Borough CouncilUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Mason French · 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

Mason French died aged 11 on 25 October 2022 when his bicycle collided with a passenger bus at a concealed junction on Lizard Lane, Whitburn. The report raises concern that, despite safety improvements, cyclists remain at risk in the area without further measures.

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
Continuing risk to cyclists in the collision area
Wider context from the report
“Despite the safety improvements at the location of the road traffic collision, I continue to be concerned that without further measures cyclists in particular remain at risk in that area. ”
Source location
Mason French · 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
Undertake programmed works to reduce the stone wall height and improve visibility at the lane access.

Verbatim wording from the response
“To improve visibility, it is proposed to reduce the height of the stone wall on both sides of the access to the lane by approximately 1m. This will greatly improve the visibility splay and will improve the intervisibility between road users.”

Source location
Response from South Tyneside Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 June 2023
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 the Traffic Regulation Order process and consultation for proposed parking restrictions around the collision area and nearby junctions.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The proposals shown in Appendix A will keep the area clear of parked vehicles in the area around the collision. This will ensure that vehicles can remain on the correct side of the carriageway when passing the junction. The proposed parking restrictions will also look to protect the junctions of Highcroft Park, Westcroft and Maple Grove and further improve visibility.”

Source location
Response from South Tyneside Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 June 2023
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 the Traffic Regulation Order process and consultation for the proposed 20mph speed limit on Lizard Lane.

Verbatim wording from the response
“To improve road safety along the entire length of Lizard Lane in Whitburn, it is proposed to make Lizard Lane 20mph. As traffic speeds are currently above the compliance level for 20mph, it is proposed to implement additional traffic calming to further reduce speeds. Appendix B shows the extent of the proposed 20mph Zone and details of the proposed traffic calming.”

Source location
Response from South Tyneside Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 June 2023
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 the formal legal notification process for proposed additional traffic calming on Lizard Lane.

Verbatim wording from the response
“To improve road safety along the entire length of Lizard Lane in Whitburn, it is proposed to make Lizard Lane 20mph. As traffic speeds are currently above the compliance level for 20mph, it is proposed to implement additional traffic calming to further reduce speeds. Appendix B shows the extent of the proposed 20mph Zone and details of the proposed traffic calming.”

Source location
Response from South Tyneside Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 June 2023
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
Implementation of measures requiring legal consultation or notification cannot be guaranteed because proceeding would pre-judge the consultation outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response
“For the measures that must follow the TRO process or legal notification, we cannot guarantee that the measures can be implemented as this would be seen to pre-judge the outcome of the consultation process. However, given the recent fatality, there should be sufficient grounds to overturn any objection on road safety grounds.”

Source location
Response from South Tyneside Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 June 2023
Open published response
28 Nov2022
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
1. Unusually high number of similar collisions 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 8
1. 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 planned
2. Action
  Ask scheme designers to consider pedestrian safety options at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road.
  Stated by Transport for LondonStated planned
3. Action
  Undertake further vehicle-speed surveys to assess whether physical speed-reduction measures are required.
  Stated by Transport for LondonStated planned
1. Action
  Consider restoring pedestrian guardrail at the junction as part of the wider scheme.
  Stated by Transport for LondonStated planned
2. Action
  Consider traffic-calming measures at the junction as part of the wider scheme.
  Stated by Transport for LondonStated planned
3. Action
  Consider modernising pedestrian signals, including possible countdown signals, as part of the junction scheme.
  Stated by Transport for LondonStated planned
4. Action
  Arrange a site visit to assess urgent safety improvements proposed for the junction.
  Stated by Transport for LondonStated planned
5. Action
  Progress the Safer Junction scheme, including the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction, through feasibility, design and construction.
  Stated by Transport for LondonStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. 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 act
AI-generated summary

Miriam BOULIA · 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

Miriam Boulia was struck by a bus while crossing Great Eastern Street on a red pedestrian signal and sustained catastrophic, unsurvivable injuries; she was declared deceased at the scene. The report identified concerns that signal timings at the junction did not allow pedestrians enough time to cross safely, with a high number of similar collisions and improvements potentially taking two to four years.

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
Unusually high number of similar collisions at the junction
Wider context from the report
“There have been 21 collisions involving injury at this junction over a recent three-year period, 9 of those involving injury to pedestrians. Of particular concern is that the number of collisions at this junction of a similar nature to that in which Ms Boulia died, is unusually high. ”
Source location
Miriam BOULIA · 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
Progress the Safer Junction scheme and include Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road, subject to final Department for Transport approvals.

Verbatim wording from the response
“21. On 30 August 2022, TfL reached a long-term agreement with the Government on funding until 31 March 2024. This has allowed TfL to recommence feasibility and design proposals for various schemes which were paused due to funding constraints during the pandemic.”

Source location
Response from Transport for London report
Page 5 · response
Published 1 December 2022
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
Ask scheme designers to consider pedestrian safety options at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road.

Verbatim wording from the response
“22. Since August 2022, TfL has been meeting with the Department for Transport (‘DfT’) to discuss plans on spending the funding. TfL will now be progressing the scheme for the Safer Junction programme at Great Eastern Street/Shoreditch High Street/Commercial Street. As part of this, TfL will formally include the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction within the scope of this scheme, subject to final approvals with the DfT. The scope of any briefing for the scheme will include asking the designers to consider the best options for pedestrians at this junction. The timescales for this scheme are 2-4 years, subject to funding.”

Source location
Response from Transport for London report
Page 5 · response
Published 1 December 2022
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
Undertake further vehicle-speed surveys to assess whether physical speed-reduction measures are required.

Verbatim wording from the response
“32. In terms of instigating traffic calming measures on this stretch of road, such matters will also be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction. TfL also reviews the speeds of vehicles on roads where speed limits have been changed. If speeds are not reducing or are not at the speed limit level, consideration can then be given to the use of physical measures to aid speed reduction. The most recent survey for Great Eastern Street shows a reduction in speed to 21mph which is within the category, below 24mph, that the DfT states signage and road markings can be used and that physical measures are not also required. We will undertake further surveys as part of the work highlighted in paragraph 22 to consider again if physical measures are required.”

Source location
Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022
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
Consider restoring pedestrian guardrail at the junction as part of the wider scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“31. Consideration of restoring PGR to this junction will be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction referred to above.”

Source location
Response from Transport for London report
Page 6 · response
Published 1 December 2022
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
Consider traffic-calming measures at the junction as part of the wider scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“32. In terms of instigating traffic calming measures on this stretch of road, such matters will also be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction. TfL also reviews the speeds of vehicles on roads where speed limits have been changed. If speeds are not reducing or are not at the speed limit level, consideration can then be given to the use of physical measures to aid speed reduction. The most recent survey for Great Eastern Street shows a reduction in speed to 21mph which is within the category, below 24mph, that the DfT states signage and road markings can be used and that physical measures are not also required. We will undertake further surveys as part of the work highlighted in paragraph 22 to consider again if physical measures are required.”

Source location
Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022
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
Consider modernising pedestrian signals, including possible countdown signals, as part of the junction scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“a. Potential improvements to the signal timings;”

Source location
Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022
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
Arrange a site visit to assess urgent safety improvements proposed for the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“38. TfL was made aware of the proposals in the MPS report on 31 October 2022. TfL is arranging a further site visit for early December 2022 to consider the proposals made in the MPS report and any findings made at the forthcoming inquest. The purpose of this site visit will be for TfL to consider any urgent safety improvements required at this junction.”

Source location
Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022
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
Progress the Safer Junction scheme, including the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction, through feasibility, design and construction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“TfL provided a report to the Coroner to assist with his investigation (please find attached the report). TfL explained in the report that the proposed Safer Junction scheme at Great Eastern Street/Shoreditch High Street/Commercial Street will incorporate the Road Safety scheme at the junction at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road. One proposal put forward was a new layout for this junction. This would seek to align and widen pedestrian crossings to the desire line and implement physical measures to slow speeds around this junction.”

Source location
Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 1 December 2022
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 proposed junction safety schemes were paused because pandemic-related fare losses created funding constraints pending a long-term Government funding agreement.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020 and subsequent lockdowns devastated TfL’s fares income and meant TfL required emergency Government support to run its day-to-day transport services. Therefore, the proposals referred to above to investigate feasibility proposals for the junction at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road, as well as the wider Safer Junction scheme, were paused pending a long-term funding deal.”

Source location
Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 1 December 2022
Open published response
2 Sep2022
Oxfordshire
Concerns raised1
1. Cycle lane layout failing to provide clear and safe positioning for cyclists crossing the junction
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 7
1. Action
  Provide cyclists with a five-second advance green signal at Headley Way.
  Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Provide a dropped kerb directing cyclists from London Road to the Headley Way shared-use path.
  Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated completed
3. Action
  Remove the stone planter at Headley Way to increase space for pedestrians and cyclists.
  Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated planned
1. Action
  Redesign and amend Headley Way road markings and cycle-lane markings to clarify cyclist movements through the junction.
  Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated in progress
2. Action
  Implement recommendations from the completed Stage 4 Road Safety Audit in proportion to the risks identified.
  Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated in progress
3. Action
  Commission and complete a Vulnerable Road Users audit of the relevant highway arrangements.
  Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated in progress
4. Action
  Review key junctions posing potential risks to vulnerable road users and develop short-, medium- and long-term mitigations.
  Stated by Oxfordshire County CouncilStated completed
AI-generated summary

Jennifer Wong · 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

Jennifer Wong died at the scene of a road traffic accident on Headington Road, Oxford, on 26 September 2021, after a mobile crane turning left knocked her from her cycle and ran over her. The report identifies concerns about the crane driver's significant nearside blind spots and the lack of close-proximity mirrors or other visibility measures. It also raises concerns about the layout and width of the cycle lane, which may bring cyclists into conflict with vehicles turning left.

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
Cycle lane layout failing to provide clear and safe positioning for cyclists crossing the junction
Wider context from the report
“The first and main concern is in relation to the nearside cycle lane and what appeared to be an element of confusion or perhaps a dilemma for cyclists at this location intending to cycle straight across the junction. The cycle lane puts cyclists on the nearside of a lane that is specifically for vehicles turning right into Headley Way. There is the box/advanced stop line in front of the line of traffic in the lane but this requires the cyclist to decide to use it and, importantly, to have time to make it pass the nearside of the vehicles and into the box before the vehicles in the lane commence their right turn. If there was no cycle lane, it appears more likely that a cyclist heading straight across would position themselves in lane 2 for vehicles also heading straight on. I believe that further consideration should be given to this issue and if improved signage has a part to play to mitigate the risks. I appreciate of course that it is not possible to remove risk completely and cyclists will make different choices about where to position themselves at a junction such as this one. I anticipate that the junction is not dissimilar to many others in Oxford. The issue of cyclists in nearside blind spots, particularly involving large commercial vehicles with limited visibility, therefore presents a significant and ongoing risk. ”
Source location
Jennifer Wong · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 5 · 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
Provide cyclists with a five-second advance green signal at Headley Way.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The council has taken on board your concerns and several measures have already been put in place to improve the public highway for vulnerable road users at both the Headley way junction and at two other key sites within the city. The works that have been completed at Headley Way include: A 5 second advance green lights for cyclists heading east bound and a dropped kerb facility to bring cyclists off the London Road to turn left into Headley Way. We have also commissioned our highway maintenance contractors to undertake a series of road marking amendments to make it clearer for cyclists to utilise the junction. The redesign of the lane/cycle markings has been commissioned to specifically consider the concerns that you raised in your Matter of Concern point 1. The design and delivery of the works at the Headley junction are due to be completed by the end of November 2022.”

Source location
Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 January 2023
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
Provide a dropped kerb directing cyclists from London Road to the Headley Way shared-use path.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The council has taken on board your concerns and several measures have already been put in place to improve the public highway for vulnerable road users at both the Headley way junction and at two other key sites within the city. The works that have been completed at Headley Way include: A 5 second advance green lights for cyclists heading east bound and a dropped kerb facility to bring cyclists off the London Road to turn left into Headley Way. We have also commissioned our highway maintenance contractors to undertake a series of road marking amendments to make it clearer for cyclists to utilise the junction. The redesign of the lane/cycle markings has been commissioned to specifically consider the concerns that you raised in your Matter of Concern point 1. The design and delivery of the works at the Headley junction are due to be completed by the end of November 2022.”

Source location
Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 January 2023
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
Remove the stone planter at Headley Way to increase space for pedestrians and cyclists.

Verbatim wording from the response
“- Dropped kerb – The council has now completed the dropped kerb facility at Headley way. We will also be removing the stone planter to increase the space for pedestrians and cyclist at this junction. This now means that cyclists are directed off the London Road before the Headley Way junction to afford them safe passage to the shared use cycle/footway on Headley way.”

Source location
Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 January 2023
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
Redesign and amend Headley Way road markings and cycle-lane markings to clarify cyclist movements through the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The council has taken on board your concerns and several measures have already been put in place to improve the public highway for vulnerable road users at both the Headley way junction and at two other key sites within the city. The works that have been completed at Headley Way include: A 5 second advance green lights for cyclists heading east bound and a dropped kerb facility to bring cyclists off the London Road to turn left into Headley Way. We have also commissioned our highway maintenance contractors to undertake a series of road marking amendments to make it clearer for cyclists to utilise the junction. The redesign of the lane/cycle markings has been commissioned to specifically consider the concerns that you raised in your Matter of Concern point 1. The design and delivery of the works at the Headley junction are due to be completed by the end of November 2022.”

Source location
Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 January 2023
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
Implement recommendations from the completed Stage 4 Road Safety Audit in proportion to the risks identified.

Verbatim wording from the response
“- Stage 4 Road Safety Audit (RSA) – The RSA4 was completed in October 2022. The report is attached. The council is now ensuring that the recommendations are implemented in a timely manner that is proportionate to the risk posed by the measures being recommended for delivery.”

Source location
Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 January 2023
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
Commission and complete a Vulnerable Road Users audit of the relevant highway arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“- Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) Audit – following a request from the family, this was commissioned through our Highway maintenance provider on Friday 7 October 2022. There was slight delay in requesting this as we had to wait for the Stage 4 RSA to be completed to ensure a different team were used to undertake the additional assessment. This is to ensure the impartiality of both reports. The findings normally take a minimum of 31 days to be compiled into a report. This is the standard length of time that we would expect for such a report to be developed. The council will write to the coroner with the recommendations of this report upon receipt. The council can confirm that any further actions that are recommended within either the Stage 4 RSA or the VRU report will be actioned with immediate effect where it is a priority measure recommended.”

Source location
Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 January 2023
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
Review key junctions posing potential risks to vulnerable road users and develop short-, medium- and long-term mitigations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“- The council has reviewed its key junctions that were deemed to be a potential risk to vulnerable road users with input from the cycle safety groups. These reviews have involved site meetings and virtual meetings to fully understand what is required to make the junctions as safe as is reasonably practicable with the resources that are available. In some locations these have been split into short, medium and long-term measures to enable some quick mitigations whilst having a more strategic overview of future developments in the area that will dramatically change the layout of some of the areas.”

Source location
Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 16 January 2023
Open published response
30 May2022
Wiltshire and Swindon
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to make the Tollard Green junction and bend sufficiently distinguishable to approaching motorists
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 3
1. Action
  Assess the site and review existing traffic-sign arrangements through experienced road-safety professionals.
  Stated by Wiltshire CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Add “SLOW” road markings to the Council’s road-marking programme for delivery in the coming months.
  Stated by Wiltshire CouncilStated planned
3. Action
  Continue monitoring the hedgerow situation alongside the highway and landowner responsibilities.
  Stated by Wiltshire CouncilStated in progress
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Existing road signs accurately represent the layout and hazards, so no further amendments are proposed.
  Stated by Wiltshire CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Albert Thomas Stafford Manley · 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

Albert Thomas Stafford Manley, known to his family as “Jim”, died at Southampton General Hospital on 31 May 2021 from multiple traumatic injuries sustained when his Ford Mondeo collided with an oncoming Land Rover Discovery on the B3081 near Tollard Royal. The report raises concern that the road layout, junction and bends could be misread by unfamiliar drivers, potentially contributing to collisions, and considers whether further warnings or other measures could reduce this risk.

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
Failure to make the Tollard Green junction and bend sufficiently distinguishable to approaching motorists
Wider context from the report
“Although I was unable to make a finding of fact in this case Jim more likely than not misunderstood the road lay out, I was satisfied that it was a possibility and I am concerned that a driver who is unfamiliar with that road section could read the road incorrectly taking into account what they physically see and having regard to the road signs approaching the junction, leading to such a misunderstanding. The national speed limit on this section of road is, of course, 60 mph and every driver have a duty to drive at a speed commensurate with road conditions and additionally owes a duty of care to other road users in terms of driving carefully and considerately. How is it possible to misread the road? In answering that question, see figure 1 below, is a photograph of the view using Google Earth cameras approaching the junction heading in the same south easterly direction that Jim would have been travelling. Fig.1 At approximately 200 metres from the junction is a very clear sign (above) highlighting the junction with the main B3081 continuing left to Tollard Royal and the road leading off to Tollard Green. In the photograph in the road ahead depending on the type of vehicle being driven and its position you can see a left-hand bend ahead of you. The visible bend is in fact a left hand bend once you have left the B3081 and is part of the road heading towards Tollard Green. It is not the junction bend on careful analysis. The next photograph at figure 2 shows a sign for tourist and information purposes which lies approximately 85 metres from the junction with Tollard Green. You can however see the bend ahead which again is the bend beyond the junction and is not the Tollard Green, Tollard Royal junction which is still hidden. Fig2 In Fig3 below a chevron sign at the time of the collision was missing on the sign post to the right of the highway but this sign together with the road markings have now been replaced/refreshed. As a driver myself the chevron markings would be of more assistance to a driver at night time although, of course, they would be visible in the day time but due to size to a lesser degree. At night, the reflective paint differentiating between black and white in my personal view would make the sign more obvious especially when headlights would be unlikely to pick up he Tollard Green bend ahead. Fig 3 In considering my duty to make a report to prevent future deaths I had a report prepared for ████████ from Wiltshire Police (copy attached) and in that report he documented a previous collision history in the last 5 years and in particular 2 incidents, 1 occurring in 2017 and the other in 2018, both of which involved vehicles turning right at the junction to Tollard Green. One incident involved a car and a motorcycle, the other involving a car and a van. I also heard evidence from ████████ who has lived in the area for a number of years that the route to via Tollard Green into Verwood and Bournemouth is used by many as a back road in respect of which he described it as “a rat run” and cars apparently do not necessarily slow to any great degree when exiting that junction from a south easterly direction. ████████ in his report makes 2 recommendations, one of which is to remove the hedgerow to the left to increase visibility around the bend. That recommendation, I have to say, is of some concern to me as I do not think that it would tempt drivers to slow down to any degree and they would be more likely in looking across to look for oncoming traffic and may not always pick up smaller vehicles such a cyclist and motorcycle users when looking to exit the junction heading towards Tollard Green. That recommendation is also of concern to me because Wiltshire at the end of the day is a rural county and its hedgerows and the wildlife contained within the hedgerows are an important feature of its character. I also heard evidence of one of our Coroners Officers, ████████, who commented that the hedgerows had an additional purpose in trying to prevent deer which are a feature in this particular area leaving the fields and crossing the roads. He acquired this information when he was a serving Police Officer and from speaking to one of the nearby landowners. Deer crossing road especially at night can pose a dangerous and unexpected hazard. As regards the second recommendation from ████████, this maybe something that you might be willing to consider or whether there perhaps is a better way through the use of further signing to make it even clearer as regards the existence of the junction and the bend. In asking you to consider painting the word “SLOW” as you approach the bend in both directions as recommended by ████████, I am mindful of the fact that as the highway authority you are under no obligation to provide such warnings as was pointed out by the House of Lords in the 2003 Decision in “Gorringe”. I am however concerned that there is a possibility that the road could be misread and that the bend having exited the junction heading towards Tollard Green could be mistaken by motorist unfamiliar with this section of the road, be confused with the bend and the junction on the B3081 heading towards Tollard Royal. The bend having exited the junction heading towards Tollard Green is very similar in shape to the bend heading towards Tollard Royal which is hidden until you get very close to it. I can see the propensity for a mistake being made here even if it is a mistake that I myself, I hope, would not make and I would ask you to consider if there is anything further that could be done to warn of this junction and bend to further minimise the possibility of any misunderstanding being made by road users if you are minded not to adopt ████████ recommendation. ”
Source location
Albert Thomas Stafford Manley · 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
Assess the site and review existing traffic-sign arrangements through experienced road-safety professionals.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following your suggestion that consideration be given to the introduction of further road markings and review of the current signing arrangements, I can advise the site has been visited by experienced road safety professionals with these comments in mind.”

Source location
Response from Wilshire Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022
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
Add “SLOW” road markings to the Council’s road-marking programme for delivery in the coming months.

Verbatim wording from the response
“With regards to your other observation that the existing signing could be supplemented using road markings depicting the characters ‘SLOW’, this is something that is considered to be appropriate and would be beneficial in assisting motorists to negotiate this section of road. I confirm that this work will be added to the Council’s road marking programme of works for the coming months.”

Source location
Response from Wilshire Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022
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
Continue monitoring the hedgerow situation alongside the highway and landowner responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I note the recommendations within the Police report regarding the removal of the hedgerow and your observations on the matter. The hedgerow is outside of the highway boundary and is the responsibility of the landowner, and at present it is not proposed to suggest the removal of the hedgerow for the reasons you mention, but we will continue to monitor the situation and enter discussion with the landowner if deemed necessary in the future.”

Source location
Response from Wilshire Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 September 2022
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
Existing road signs accurately represent the layout and hazards, so no further amendments are proposed.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Whilst the observations regarding the traffic signs are appreciated, the review has concluded that the existing sign arrangements are representative of the road layout and offer motorists the correct information of the hazards they should expect when negotiating this section of road. Therefore, no further amendments to the road signs are proposed.”

Source location
Response from Wilshire Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 September 2022
Open published response
8 Mar2021
Isle of Wight
Concerns raised2
1. High recurring collision risk at the Whitehouse Road and Forest Road junction
2. Insufficient road safety measures at the Whitehouse Road and Forest Road junction
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 5
1. Action
  Commission outline design options for junction improvements.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Conduct design review and consultation for junction improvement options.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated planned
3. Action
  Select a junction design option and commission its detailed design.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated planned
1. Action
  Tender the improvement works and appoint a delivery contractor.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Construct the selected new junction layout to improve safety.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated planned
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Traffic lights would not eliminate incidents, so a physical junction layout change is preferred instead.
  Stated by Island Roads Services LimitedDisputes the concern
1. Position
  Traffic lights would not eliminate incidents; a physical layout change is preferred to require drivers to deviate from a straight-through route.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Yvonne COPLAND · 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

Yvonne COPLAND died at the scene after a collision involving the car in which she was a rear-seat passenger, a double-decker bus and a silver Mini Cooper at the junction of Forest Road and Whitehouse Road on the Isle of Wight. The report raises concerns that the junction has poor visibility and a deceptive layout, has a history of serious collisions, and may not be made significantly safer by hedge realignment alone.

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
High recurring collision risk at the Whitehouse Road and Forest Road junction
Wider context from the report
“5. Accident data from the Isle of Wight Council and Island Roads show there is a ‘high probability’ of a crash occurring at that junction at least once every year, and it is ‘likely’ that between 25% and 50% of those accidents could kill or seriously injure someone. 6. In the last 5 years, I am informed that there have been 7 recorded collisions which have occurred at this junction – the one involving Mrs COPLAND was clearly one where a fatality occurred, and number of others were seriously injured in this incident. I also understand that there have been 3 other serious collisions at this location with 6 of those collisions involving vehicles exiting Whitehouse Road on to Forest Road. 7. Forest Road is the main strategic route from Newport to the West Wight and is thought to be used by approximately 10,000 vehicles a day and its junction with Whitehouse Road is currently in the top 10 potential safety schemes on the Island’s Highways Safety and Improvement Register. 8. Whilst I am aware that some measures have been taken by the Isle of Wight Council to reduce the likelihood of a collision in the future by realigning a hedge, I am concerned that this measure does not go far enough to make this junction significantly safer for all road users in the future. ”
Source location
Yvonne COPLAND · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 4 · 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
Insufficient road safety measures at the Whitehouse Road and Forest Road junction
Wider context from the report
“5. Accident data from the Isle of Wight Council and Island Roads show there is a ‘high probability’ of a crash occurring at that junction at least once every year, and it is ‘likely’ that between 25% and 50% of those accidents could kill or seriously injure someone. 6. In the last 5 years, I am informed that there have been 7 recorded collisions which have occurred at this junction – the one involving Mrs COPLAND was clearly one where a fatality occurred, and number of others were seriously injured in this incident. I also understand that there have been 3 other serious collisions at this location with 6 of those collisions involving vehicles exiting Whitehouse Road on to Forest Road. 7. Forest Road is the main strategic route from Newport to the West Wight and is thought to be used by approximately 10,000 vehicles a day and its junction with Whitehouse Road is currently in the top 10 potential safety schemes on the Island’s Highways Safety and Improvement Register. 8. Whilst I am aware that some measures have been taken by the Isle of Wight Council to reduce the likelihood of a collision in the future by realigning a hedge, I am concerned that this measure does not go far enough to make this junction significantly safer for all road users in the future. ”
Source location
Yvonne COPLAND · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 4 · 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
Commission outline design options for junction improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.”

Source location
2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2021
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
Conduct design review and consultation for junction improvement options.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.”

Source location
2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2021
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
Select a junction design option and commission its detailed design.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.”

Source location
2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2021
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
Tender the improvement works and appoint a delivery contractor.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.”

Source location
2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2021
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
Construct the selected new junction layout to improve safety.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.”

Source location
2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2021
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
Traffic lights would not eliminate incidents, so a physical junction layout change is preferred instead.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.”

Source location
2021-0067-Response-from-Ringway-Island-Roads-Ltd-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2021
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
Traffic lights would not eliminate incidents; a physical layout change is preferred to require drivers to deviate from a straight-through route.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.”

Source location
2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 12 March 2021
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Hazardous road layout at Loscombe Crossroads

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Hazardous difficulty manoeuvring at the junction of St Johns Road, Tiffield and the A43 Northamptonshire

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

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Roadside mature trees creating an immediate vehicle-collision hazard

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

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Slip-road geometry allowing wrong-way vehicles to enter and build up considerable speed

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

Concerns raised1

Failure of commonly used satnav applications to provide safe verbal directions at the junction

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

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised1

Continuing risk to cyclists in the collision area

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 4

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 4

Actions described in response 7

Respondent positions 2