First reported 2 Dec 2013•Latest report 1 Jun 2026
Definition
What this concern includes
Includes deficiencies in warning, hazard, navigation or speed-limit signage specifically intended to protect road users on roads, bends, bridges, junctions, roundabouts or comparable road approaches, including failures of prominence, placement, direction or provision.
Not included
Excludes non-road warnings, including railway, product, food-allergen, clinical and social-care policy communications.
Excludes road markings, street lighting, vegetation maintenance, speed-limit setting and physical road layout unless the assertion specifically concerns dedicated road warning signage.
Excludes general road safety deficiencies or collision hazards that do not identify inadequate warning signage.
Reports
84
Distinct published reports
Individual concerns
100
A report can raise multiple concerns
Date range
2013–2026
First to latest report issue date
Stated actions
118
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
National Highways19
Department for Transport9
Cumbria County Council4
Warwickshire County Council4
Bradford City Council3
Hampshire County Council3
Lincolnshire County Council3
Office of the Chief Coroner3
Recipient name withheld3
West Sussex County Council3
Devon County Council2
Dorset County Council2
Durham County Council2
Kent County Council2
Monmouthshire County Council2
English county council34
National road infrastructure body19
English unitary authority14
English metropolitan district council9
Ministerial department9
Type not available6
Private limited company5
Sub-organisation4
Coronial office3
Welsh county council3
Company2
London borough council2
Police force2
Public transport authority2
Road infrastructure contractor2
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.
East Riding and Hull
Concerns raised1
Inadequate signage warning road users of the hill and sharp turn
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised1
Insufficient prominence of signage on the approach to the hump back bridge
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Develop enhanced road signage to increase the conspicuity of the humpback bridge to approaching vehicles.
Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 February 2025.
East Riding and Hull
Concerns raised2
Insufficient road signage for navigating the roundabout
Inappropriate signage informing cyclists of the available alternative route
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Install lane designation signs for northbound traffic approaching the roundabout during the 2025/26 financial year, subject to funding and resource approval.
Stated by Kingston Upon Hull City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Action
Install signage highlighting the Toucan crossing route available to cyclists on the dual-use path before August 2025.
Stated by Kingston Upon Hull City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 December 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
The Council disputes that existing road signage was insufficient to help road users navigate the roundabout.
Stated by Kingston Upon Hull City CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The Council considers existing cycle-route signs and cyclists’ ability to choose the route sufficient despite no mandatory requirement to use it.
Stated by Kingston Upon Hull City CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
West Yorkshire (Western)
Concerns raised1
Lack of signs advising on appropriate speed or road curvature ahead
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 A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Position
Current junction layout and signing adequately convey alignment and junction details; therefore no alterations to the layout or slip-road speed limit are proposed.
Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Calderdale Council is responsible for the A672 carriageway and immediate slip-road interface beyond National Highways’ boundary, including associated signs and markings.
Stated by National HighwaysRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Milton Keynes
Concerns raised1
Inadequate positioning and visibility of No Entry signage for wrong-way slip-road entry
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 An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.6
Action
Install temporary large No Entry signs on A-frames at both sides of the A5 off-slip exit.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Complete a full safety review of the junction against the current Wrong Way Driving: Mitigation Toolkit.
Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Continue developing enhanced A5 off-slip mitigation options and establish which measures will be progressed, including improved signage and road markings.
Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
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 plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Inspect the junction and assess signage and road markings for safety defects.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Action
Review the junction situation later as part of the planned work programme.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
Position
The junction already has all standard wrong-way-driving mitigation measures required by the current toolkit.
Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
Existing signage and road markings appeared adequate under applicable regulations, although illumination might improve the no-entry signage.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Position
The council has no powers to improve the junction mouth, signage or road markings because these are outside its highway authority functions.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Position
National Highways is responsible for the slip road junction, its signage and road markings, so it must undertake related improvements.
Stated by Milton Keynes City CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Norfolk
Concerns raised3
Insufficiency of temporary road-closure signs
Failure to position flood warnings sufficiently in advance and visibly before the Ford
Lack of appropriate warning signs that the Ford is prone to flooding and may be unsafe to cross
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5
Action
Arrange replacement warning signs at locations with missing or damaged signs.
Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 July 2024.
Action
Install immovable barriers and associated robust closure measures at Shotesham Ford.
Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 July 2024.
Action
Install improved warning signage at multiple ford locations following site-specific safety reviews.
Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 July 2024.
Action
Make the ford safe with temporary signs and order replacement permanent signs after theft of warning signs.
Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 31 July 2024.
Action
Conduct detailed, site-specific safety reviews of all 47 county fords.
Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 31 July 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Standard temporary road-closure signs and barriers are generally effective for implementing highway closures.
Stated by Norfolk County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton
Concerns raised1
Absence of warning signs for the crest hazard at night
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 An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Recommend providing crossroads warning signs, reduce-speed-now signs and SLOW road markings on both approaches to the Spaniard’s Lane crossroads.
Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 September 2024.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Lack of signs warning road users of pedestrians
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.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
West Yorkshire (Western)
Concerns raised1
Failure to provide sufficient advance warning of the layby
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Install a Hidden Dip warning sign to alert drivers to the prevailing hazard.
Stated by Bradford City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2024.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
The privately owned land and informal layby are outside the adopted highway network and not under the Council’s control.
Stated by Bradford City CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Lincolnshire
Concerns raised1
Failure of junction signage to require stopping where visibility of the major road is restricted
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Action
Regularly assess vegetation at the junction approaches and take enforcement action to maintain maximum visibility and unobstructed visibility splays.
Stated by Lincolnshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 6 September 2023.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Position
Existing Give Way signage will not be changed because junction visibility substantially exceeds the distance at which a Stop sign might be considered.
Stated by Lincolnshire County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes deficiencies in warning, hazard, navigation or speed-limit signage specifically intended to protect road users on roads, bends, bridges, junctions, roundabouts or comparable road approaches, including failures of prominence, placement, direction or provision.
