Recurring concern
Inadequate control of recurring collision risks at hazardous road locations
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 13 Jan 2014•Latest report 6 May 2025
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
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
-
Concerns raised1
Recurrent fatal road traffic collisions at the exact location of the same tree
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Include a vehicle restraint scheme for the location in the 2020–2021 capital programme.
Stated by Sunderland City Council
-
Concerns raised2
Failure of cycle-lane layout to ensure cyclists are visible to left-turning motor vehicles
Failure of Dover Road layout to safely separate cyclists from motor vehicles
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
-
Action
Review all cycle lanes as part of the updated borough cycling strategy.
Stated by Slough Borough Council -
Action
Prepare comprehensive cycling design standards based on proven best practice.
Stated by Slough Borough Council -
Action
Continue working with SEGRO representatives to promote vehicle priority at nearside cycle lanes and discourage cyclists from undertaking at junctions.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Segregating cyclists or reallocating road space is not feasible without disproportionate financial investment given the presenting problem and competing priorities.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
-
Position
Two cycling incidents do not constitute a collision cluster or demonstrate a systemic junction problem warranting concern.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
-
Concerns raised1
Road junction posing a recurring 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 concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Injury collision rate at the junction
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
-
Action
Complete the programme of junction sign improvements at and before the junction.
Stated by Slough Borough Council -
Action
Separate the secondary traffic signal heads and add guidance markings to direct drivers safely through the junction.
Stated by Slough Borough Council -
Action
Refresh the approach road markings and renew the yellow box junction marking.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
-
Action
Complete an independent junction safety review, including collision-data assessment, and provide a report with proposals for further improvements.
Stated by Slough Borough Council
-
Concerns raised1
Pedestrian collision hazard near 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 concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.6
-
Action
Implement segregated cycle lanes, pedestrian islands and turn restrictions through the junction upgrade.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Complete a collision study examining recent recorded collision history to inform further cycling and walking improvements.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Reintroduce the Burdett Road right turn into Mile End Road and ban the corresponding Mile End Road left turn.
Stated by Transport for London
-
Action
Reintroduce pedestrian guard railing on the junction’s north-west corner to direct pedestrians to formal crossings.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Investigate A11 approach measures, including bus-stop changes and relocating the Mile End station crossing, to reduce queuing and blocking back.
Stated by Transport for London -
Action
Introduce a 20mph speed limit on the A11 corridor between Bow and Aldgate through the junction.
Stated by Transport for London
-
Concerns raised1
Repeated road traffic collisions at the junction involving drivers emerging onto the A36
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 concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Implement visibility and signing measures at the Branch Road junction, including warning signs, road markings, red surfacing, direction signs and vegetation clearance.
Stated by National Highways
-
Concerns raised2
Inadequacy of the road layout at the collision location
Inadequacy of safety notices or barriers at the collision location
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
-
Action
Maintain the local safety scheme’s large yellow-backed chevrons, widened carriageway and bend hatching.
Stated by Cornwall Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Existing chevrons, bend widening, hatching and the reduced speed limit have improved safety, leaving little further to do.
Stated by Cornwall Council
-
Position
Solid restraints may cause more injuries than they prevent by increasing impact severity or redirecting vehicles into oncoming traffic.
Stated by Cornwall Council
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to provide a dual carriageway throughout the A66
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5
-
Action
Upgrade the A66 and A69 in line with the Government’s commitment.
Stated by Department for Transport -
Action
Carry out the Northern Trans-Pennine strategic study of improvements to the A66 and A69.
Stated by Department for Transport -
Action
Install average-speed cameras at A66 Kirkby Thore.
Stated by Department for Transport
-
Action
Introduce safety measures between A66 Appleby and Brough, including upgraded signs and markings, extended double white lines and roadside safety barriers.
Stated by Department for Transport -
Action
Decide whether to proceed with the proposed 50 mph speed limit between A66 Appleby and Brough after considering the objection.
Stated by Department for Transport
-
Concerns raised1
Insufficient visibility for drivers to detect carriageway debris and avoid collisions
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Collision black spot at the bend
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 concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5
-
Action
Provide additional SLOW road markings on the carriageway.
Stated by National Highways -
Action
Increase bend chevrons to three in each direction and place them on yellow backgrounds.
Stated by National Highways -
Action
Develop new reflective road studs on both approaches and around the bend to improve night-time safety.
Stated by National Highways
-
Action
Develop an additional red triangular warning sign on the southbound approach for possible queues ahead.
Stated by National Highways -
Action
Consider whether advisory maximum-speed plates are appropriate or permissible under the bend warning signs.
Stated by National Highways
Data last updated 7 September 2026