Recurring concern

Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 2 Jul 2014•Latest report 9 Apr 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures or hazards that materially restrict the visibility needed by drivers, cyclists or pedestrians approaching, entering or negotiating a hazardous road junction, including obstruction by vegetation, fencing, parked or moving vehicles, glare or comparable junction-specific conditions, together with dedicated measures intended to restore or protect that visibility.

Not included

Excludes general road-junction design, collision, signage, marking, lighting or speed-control deficiencies where restricted visibility is not the shared unsafe condition.
Excludes ordinary vehicle forward-visibility, driver competence and weather-related visibility problems that are not specifically tied to visibility at a hazardous junction.
Excludes pedestrian crossings, cycle routes and roadside-obstacle concerns where junction visibility is not the material safety condition.
Excludes failures occurring after road users have had adequate visibility and the remaining issue is response, treatment or enforcement.

Reports: 23
Individual concerns: 24
Date range: 2014–2025
Stated actions: 24

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 Highways2

Wrexham County Borough Council2

Bolton Borough Council1

Cornwall Council1

Department for Transport1

Family of Anais Thouvenot1

Hertfordshire County Council1

Leicester City Council1

Leicester Cycling Campaign Group1

Leicestershire County Council1

Lincolnshire County Council1

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council1

Norfolk County Council1

Northamptonshire County Council1

North Yorkshire Council1

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.

17 Apr2019
Berkshire
Concerns raised1
1. Unsafe layout or line of sight on the approach to 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 concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Separate the secondary traffic signal heads and add guidance markings to direct drivers safely through the junction.
  Stated by Slough Borough CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Complete an independent junction safety review, including collision-data assessment, and provide a report with proposals for further improvements.
  Stated by Slough Borough CouncilStated in progress
AI-generated summary

June Russell · 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

June Russell died following a road traffic collision on 2 May 2018 at the junction of the B470 High Street, Langley, and the A4 London Road. The report identified concerns about recurring collisions at the junction and the adequacy of its signs, traffic lights, layout and line of sight.

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
Unsafe layout or line of sight on the approach to the junction
Wider context from the report
“I consider that Slough Borough Council should take action to address the injury collision rate at this junction. Some work is ongoing, but this has been the case for over a year. This consideration should include: (a) Improvements to the signs at and before this junction. (b) Primary and secondary traffic light heads. (c) Layout and line of sight on the approach to this junction from the B470 High Street Langley. (d) It was not clear during the evidence whether the traffic lights in question are LED lights, which may assist in this respect as well. ”
Source location
June Russell · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · 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
Separate the secondary traffic signal heads and add guidance markings to direct drivers safely through the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(ii) Primary and secondary traffic light heads”

Source location
2019-0128-Response-by-Slough-Borough-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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 an independent junction safety review, including collision-data assessment, and provide a report with proposals for further improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Immediately after the Inquest which took place on 2nd April 2019, the Service Lead for Major Infrastructure Projects at the Council commissioned an independent road safety engineer to carry out a full review of this junction in conjunction with a traffic signal engineer. Those professionals met on 29th May 2019 to discuss preliminary findings. Once the review has been fully carried out, including a detailed assessment of collision data, a detailed report will be provided with full proposals for any further improvements. It is envisaged that this report will be provided within approximately 6-8 weeks, following which recommendations for further action will be put forward for implementation. The report will identify options for the short, medium and long term, to address the road safety collisions at this junction.”

Source location
2019-0128-Response-by-Slough-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 June 2019
Open published response
1 Apr2019
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
1. Impaired junction visibility from vehicles waiting to turn
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.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Ozan Allen · 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

Ozan Allen was hit by a car while crossing the junction of Mile End Road and Burdett Road on 16 August 2018 and died in hospital on 20 August 2018 from traumatic brain injury caused by the road traffic collision. Concerns included the junction’s complex layout, lack of pedestrian guard railing, impaired visibility, pedestrians not using staggered crossings as intended, and a history of collisions involving pedestrians.

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
Impaired junction visibility from vehicles waiting to turn
Wider context from the report
“(3) Visibility of the junction can be impaired by vehicles waiting to turn. ”
Source location
Ozan Allen · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
9 Apr2018
Northamptonshire
Concerns raised1
1. Compromised visibility 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 1
1. Action
  Convert both junction approaches from Give Way to Stop controls through an identical scheme.
  Stated by Northamptonshire County CouncilStated planned
AI-generated summary

Darryl Alfred Wayne Rego SOUZA · 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

Darryl Alfred Wayne Rego Souza died at the scene on 7 October 2017 from fatal chest injuries sustained when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a Mini at a crossroads in Clipston, Northamptonshire. Concerns included compromised visibility at the junction, the lack of a timeframe for planned improvements to signage and rumble strips, a recommendation that Stop signs be considered, and a further accident at the same location around one week before the resumed inquest.

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
Compromised visibility at the junction
Wider context from the report
“1. Paragraphs 6.11 – 6.14 of the Forensic Collision Investigator’s report is set out below. 6.11 There is no doubt that the visibility at this junction is compromised by the road geography and as such high visibility “Give Way” signs and crossroads signs together with “SLOW” painted on the road surface serve to highlight the location of the crossroads and the need to take care. 6.12 In view if the visibility at this junction and after reviewing the Collision statistics at this junction there are to be some improvements carried out. 6.13 These improvements include renewing the signing particularly from the Sibbertoft direction and noise or rumble strips to be placed on the road again from the Sibbertoft direction. 6.14 At the time of writing this report, there is no time frame as to when these improvements will be completed. 2. Additionally, during evidence, the Collision Investigator recommended that the junction may benefit from the installation of “Stop” signs. 3. One of the witnesses at the inquest stated that there had been a further accident, at the same location, around one week before the resumed inquest date. ”
Source location
Darryl Alfred Wayne Rego SOUZA · 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
Convert both junction approaches from Give Way to Stop controls through an identical scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Taking account of the recommendation in your report for the junction to be regulated by ‘Stop’ signs rather than the current ‘Give Way’ controls, our engineering experts have revisited the location to investigate the feasibility of a re-grade. This type of measure is governed by national guidelines and generally confined to junctions where, in the main, visibility is severely hampered. Our experts measured an available view of 95 metres to the left from the junction mouth. This is on the margins of intervention levels but will consequently provide justification for conversion to a ‘Stop’ requirement. We will therefore include this modification in the scheme. Furthermore, the opposing junction is similar in nature and characteristic in terms of available views and the obvious requirement to exercise care.”

Source location
Response from Northamptonshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 17 June 2018
Open published response
21 Feb2018
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised1
1. Inadequate visibility of oncoming traffic for vehicles waiting or turning at the junction
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 1
1. Action
  Develop alternative junction measures, including revisions to the central traffic island and associated road markings, if closure is not pursued.
  Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilStated in progress
AI-generated summary

Molly Jean Mills · 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

Molly Jean Mills, known as Jean, was involved in a collision with a lorry while turning right on the A6006 near Stanford on Soar on 6 June 2017. She died in hospital on 17 July 2017 after contracting bronchopneumonia associated with rib fractures sustained in the collision. The report identified concerns that the junction layout, incline, obstructed visibility, unclear manoeuvring arrangements and inadequate warnings increased the risk of future collisions and deaths.

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
Inadequate visibility of oncoming traffic for vehicles waiting or turning at the junction
Wider context from the report
“1. There is a significant incline on this road (in the direction the lorry was travelling). This makes the visibility issues referred to below much more significant. 2. If there are vehicles in the central carriageway waiting to turn right into both the DNRC and Home Farm, as here, there is a risk of them having an inadequate view of oncoming traffic on the A6006, before making their turning manoeuvres. 3. This is the case in both directions, but particularly for vehicles travelling in the direction towards Rempstone, because of the incline of the road. 4. The evidence of the lorry driver was that he did not see Jean’s car until she turned in front of his vehicle. 5. The evidence of the Forensic Collision Investigation Unit officer was that Jean’s view would have been largely or completely blocked by vehicles waiting to turn right into DNRC until 2.93 seconds before impact. 6. Witness evidence suggested that the right turn into DNRC is often backed up, resulting in queues in this central lane, making visibility worse. It was suggested this may be partly because of a security barrier in the DNRC grounds, which causes traffic to back up. This is likely to remain a busy junction when the DNRC opens. 7. If the oncoming vehicle (coming up the incline towards Rempstone) was a standard vehicle, rather than a lorry, visibility would be even worse, given that the cab of a lorry is higher up. 8. Similarly, if the vehicles waiting to turn right (into Home Farm and DNRC) were lorries or other large vehicles, such as ambulances, then visibility concerns would be heightened further. 9. There is an element of uncertainty at the junction – where both vehicles are turning right – there is no clear indication of who has right of way or how the vehicles should make their manoeuvres. 10. There is a solid double white line on the road just before the turning into Home Farm. This requires a driver turning right to make a sharp-angled turn. 11. The signs on either side of the junction warn oncoming traffic of the DNRC junction, but not the Home Farm junction. The fact that the Home Farm road is a private road should not reduce the need for adequate safety warnings to drivers. 12. I have been provided with a Nottinghamshire County Council Road Safety Audit regarding this junction, which is dated 21.9.15. This contains the following extract : During the site visit we were approached by a member of the public (apparently the owner) from Home Farm, opposite the Stanford Hall Access. He brought to our attention an issue which he felt had safety implications. Drivers intending to turn right into the Home Farm access have to wait on their side of the A6006 centre line to give way to oncoming traffic, as previously. They then have to turn across both the right turn lane and the Eastbound A6006 traffic lane. If a number of vehicles were occupying the right turn lane, he felt there would be potential to mask oncoming A6006 vehicles from view. Although the existing situation requires a right turner to wait in the westbound lane of the A6006, he also felt that he would be at greater risk of shunt type accidents than previously. 13. Sadly, this appears to have been the very risk that played a part in this collision. ”
Source location
Molly Jean Mills · 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
Develop alternative junction measures, including revisions to the central traffic island and associated road markings, if closure is not pursued.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Should it not prove possible or desirable to close the access, we are considering a package of alternative measures to assist drivers attempting to turn right at that location. This includes revisions to the position of the existing central traffic island, and its associated road markings, to make it easier for vehicles to gain access to the right-turn lane when approaching from the east. This should allow drivers to position their vehicles where they can wait more comfortably for a safe gap in the oncoming traffic.”

Source location
2018-0051-Response-by-Nottingham-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 8 June 2018
Open published response
20 Jul2017
Wiltshire and Swindon
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of safe visibility and crossing conditions for pedestrians 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 concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Analyze signal operation and traffic levels, assess alternatives, and develop preliminary technology and civil-engineering designs for pedestrian signal phases.
  Stated by Swindon Borough CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Prepare and obtain approval for a briefing recommending further investigation and stakeholder and public consultation on the proposed pedestrian signal scheme.
  Stated by Swindon Borough CouncilStated completed
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The junction’s constrained sight lines and pavement space make alternative pedestrian safety options undeliverable or less beneficial than the proposed approach.
  Stated by Swindon Borough CouncilUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Nina MAGGS · 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

Nina MAGGS died at the scene from multiple traumatic injuries after being struck by an Iveco road sweeper while attempting to cross Hyde Road at a junction in Swindon on 23 February 2017. The report raises concerns about the safety of pedestrians at the junction, including inadequate pedestrian signals and insufficient time to cross safely, particularly for people with physical, visual or hearing impairments.

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
Lack of safe visibility and crossing conditions for pedestrians at the junction
Wider context from the report
“The general safety of pedestrians crossing this junction with Ermin Street, Kingsdown Road and Beechcroft Road in Swindon. During the course of the Inquest I was satisfied that the reason Nina was not using the designated location pedestrian crossing across Hyde Road was due to the fact that in crossing the road she would not have had a clear view of approaching vehicles up Beechcroft Road which could be turning left into Hyde Road. It concerns me that whilst modifications had been carried out to the road to allow pedestrians to cross the road including those for example using disability scooters having regard to the lowering of the pavements they do so at significant risk of harm and even death. Whilst the junction is controlled by traffic lights there is no assistance given to pedestrians, such as a “green man”, an active sound indicating that it is safe to cross or vibrating module at the side of the road that can be sensed by somebody with a visual and hearing impairment. In fact I heard evidence during the course of the hearing that whilst there was a period of time when all the lights at the junction were red this lasted a matter of 4 seconds which is totally insufficient in my view in giving a pedestrian and in particular one that may have a physical impairment time to safely cross any of the roads at the junction. My concern is so high here that I would ask you to treat this as a priority in considering what action if any is to be taken as I believe this is a regularly used junction by pedestrians and their safety is my utmost concern in submitting this Regulation 28 Report. ”
Source location
Nina MAGGS · 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
Analyze signal operation and traffic levels, assess alternatives, and develop preliminary technology and civil-engineering designs for pedestrian signal phases.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the fatal accident an analysis of the current operation of the traffic signals at Kingsdown Crossroads was carried out, including an analysis of the current traffic levels. A scheme to”

Source location
2017-0216-Response-by-Swindon-Borough-Council_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 25 September 2017
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
Prepare and obtain approval for a briefing recommending further investigation and stakeholder and public consultation on the proposed pedestrian signal scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Since receipt of the Regulation 28 notice, further work has included the preparation and sign off of a briefing note for the Council’s Cabinet Member for Communities and Place and sign off by myself as Head of Highways and Transport. This has recommended and approved a proposal to take the proposed scheme forward to further investigation and consultation with stakeholders and the public.”

Source location
2017-0216-Response-by-Swindon-Borough-Council_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 25 September 2017
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’s constrained sight lines and pavement space make alternative pedestrian safety options undeliverable or less beneficial than the proposed approach.

Verbatim wording from the response
“A range of alternative options have been considered for the junction. These have included a do nothing option, zebra crossings, different pedestrian phasing arrangements and the potential to significantly widen or expand the junction itself. The junction is however very constrained in relation to sight lines and pavement space and each of these options have been ruled out on either benefit or deliverability grounds when compared to the current proposed way forward”

Source location
2017-0216-Response-by-Swindon-Borough-Council_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 25 September 2017
Open published response
31 Mar2017
Berkshire
Concerns raised1
1. Restricted visibility at the Highmoor Road and Albert Road junction
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The collision evidence indicates driver failure to stop, not the stop-line position; after stopping, drivers must edge forward to gain visibility.
  Stated by Reading Borough CouncilDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Malcolm Langford · 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

Malcolm Langford was walking with his wife when a vehicle, forced off course after a collision at the Highmoor Road junction, mounted the pavement and struck him. He sustained a non-survivable head injury and died the same day. Evidence at the inquest raised concerns about restricted visibility at the junction and the difficulty of safely emerging from Highmoor Road even when Albert Road appeared clear.

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
Restricted visibility at the Highmoor Road and Albert Road junction
Wider context from the report
“His evidence was that visibility at the junction is restricted, particularly when looking to the right, due to a house with a large fence and trees. The following four important points were elicited during the inquest: (1) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the front offside corner of a vehicle travelling north along Albert Road at a distance of about 35 metres; (2) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the full width of the front of a vehicle travelling north along Albert Road at a distance of about 24 metres; (3) if a vehicle is travelling at 30mph along Albert Road, it will take only 2.6 seconds from being completely out of view of drivers on Highmoor Road to reaching the junction. It will take only 1.8 seconds from the time that the front of the vehicle is visible until it reaches the junction; (4) given a typical rate of acceleration, it is not possible for a ‘normal’ driver in a ‘normal’ car to pull safely out of Highmoor Road junction even when Albert Road appears to be clear. The only way to negotiate the junction safely is to edge forward, maintaining a constant look-out. ”
Source location
Malcolm Langford · 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
The collision evidence indicates driver failure to stop, not the stop-line position; after stopping, drivers must edge forward to gain visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Whilst the views expressed by ████████, Forensic Collision Investigator for Thames Valley Police are appreciated they do not reflect the evidence provided by the police to Reading Borough Council and that collected (by us) through CCTV video surveys.”

Source location
Response from Reading Borough Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 May 2017
Open published response
1 Mar2017
Manchester West
Concerns raised1
1. Restricted driver visibility of pedestrians at the junction
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Review collision CCTV, inquest witness statements and the junction through a multi-agency site visit.
  Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated completed
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  The reconstruction works cannot be extended to the crossing area because that area is outside the current site investigation scope.
  Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilUnable to act
1. Position
  Relocating the pedestrian crossing would not improve visibility because the building line would continue to obstruct motorists’ line of sight.
  Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Thomas Moore Unsworth · 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

Thomas Moore Unsworth, aged 80, was a pedestrian crossing Great Moor Street in Bolton when he was hit by a left-turning bus on 28 January 2016 and died from a head injury. Evidence at the inquest raised concerns that the junction layout, building line and street furniture limited drivers’ views of pedestrians and created blind spots.

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
Restricted driver visibility of pedestrians at the junction
Wider context from the report
“1. During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- The driver of the bus that came into collision with Mr Unsworth gave evidence that the nature of the junction into which she was turning together with the position into which pedestrians are guided to cross the road meant that her view of such pedestrians was limited and in certain situations there was a “blind spot” in which she was unable to see pedestrians at all. Police Officers likewise gave evidence that as vehicles were manoeuvring round this junction their driver's views of pedestrians were limited by the building line and then restricted by street furniture. The area in question is presently under reconstruction giving an opportunity for these issues to be reviewed and addressed. ”
Source location
Thomas Moore Unsworth · 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
Review collision CCTV, inquest witness statements and the junction through a multi-agency site visit.

Verbatim wording from the response
“To consider and address your concerns, a meeting was convened on 24th March 2017 with relevant local authority officers and Greater Manchester Police Area Traffic Manager from the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, at which a review of the CCTV footage from the time of the collision was undertaken, all witness statements obtained for the purpose of the Inquest were considered and a site visit was undertaken.”

Source location
Response from Bolton Council
Page 2 · response
Published 5 March 2017
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 reconstruction works cannot be extended to the crossing area because that area is outside the current site investigation scope.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3. Vehicle Blind Spots and Re-construction works”

Source location
Response from Bolton Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 March 2017
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
Relocating the pedestrian crossing would not improve visibility because the building line would continue to obstruct motorists’ line of sight.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Consideration has been given as to whether any risks would be reduced by alterations or relocation of the pedestrian crossing. Following investigation, I can confirm that the position of the crossing in relation to the junction is determined by position of the stop line, which in turn is determined by the swept path of vehicles turning into the junction. The distance between the stop line and the crossing must be between 2.0 - 3.0m and in this case the crossing could be re-located by approximately 1.0m towards Bradshawgate. However, this would have no benefit in terms of visibility between motorists and pedestrians as the building line would still obstruct the line of sight.”

Source location
Response from Bolton Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 March 2017
Open published response
22 Dec2016
North Yorkshire (West)
Concerns raised1
1. Restricted visibility of traffic at the junction
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.
AI-generated summary

Thomas Wallace · 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

On 23 April 2016, Thomas Wallace died at the scene after his motorcycle collided with a car that had pulled out from a lane onto the A682 at Long Preston. Concerns included the restricted visibility at the junction, the wall alongside the road, limited and potentially misleading signage, and the positioning of national speed limit signs.

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
Restricted visibility of traffic at the junction
Wider context from the report
“(1) The layout of the junction affords an extremely restricted view of traffic on the A682. ”
Source location
Thomas Wallace · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
29 Apr2016
Hertfordshire
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to regularly cut back plant growth at road junctions
2. Plant growth severely restricting drivers’ view at a 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
  Clear vegetation at the A505 Slip End Farm junction within the central reserve safety barrier.
  Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Assess similar junctions between Baldock and Royston to identify locations requiring additional vegetation clearance.
  Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated completed
3. Action
  Clear vegetation at six identified junctions between Baldock and Royston beyond cyclical grass-cutting maintenance.
  Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated planned
1. Action
  Revise highway safety inspectors’ remit to identify vegetation requiring corrective action on this length of road.
  Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Revise the vegetation maintenance regime so tree, shrub and plant-growth cutting is coordinated annually with grass cutting on this length of road.
  Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated completed
AI-generated summary

Jan Bodnar · 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

Jan Bodnar died after his motorcycle collided with a car crossing the A505 near Ashwell on 12 July 2015. The report raised concerns that plant growth in the central reservation severely restricted visibility for drivers and that similar risks might exist at other junctions on the road.

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 regularly cut back plant growth at road junctions
Wider context from the report
“(1) That the state of the central reservation at this junction was dangerous in that the plant growth severely restricted the view for a driver of traffic approaching from the left. (2) The evidence showed that the growth had been cut back a week or so after this incident, but the risk of danger to motorists will only be avoided if the growth at this junction is regularly cut back. (3) The evidence showed that similar risks may well be present at other similar junctions on this road. ”
Source location
Jan Bodnar · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · 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
Plant growth severely restricting drivers’ view at a junction
Wider context from the report
“(1) That the state of the central reservation at this junction was dangerous in that the plant growth severely restricted the view for a driver of traffic approaching from the left. (2) The evidence showed that the growth had been cut back a week or so after this incident, but the risk of danger to motorists will only be avoided if the growth at this junction is regularly cut back. (3) The evidence showed that similar risks may well be present at other similar junctions on this road. ”
Source location
Jan Bodnar · 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
Clear vegetation at the A505 Slip End Farm junction within the central reserve safety barrier.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Cleared the vegetation (tree, shrubs and other plant growth) at the A505 Slip End Farm junction (inside the safety barrier within the central reserve) on 25 and 27 July 2015.”

Source location
2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016
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
Assess similar junctions between Baldock and Royston to identify locations requiring additional vegetation clearance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Carried out an assessment of similar junctions on this section of road between Baldock and Royston. This has revealed that of the 11 junctions, 6 require further vegetation clearance over and above what is covered by our cyclical grass cutting maintenance programme. This work is planned to be undertaken in July 2016, subject to weather and other factors outside of our control.”

Source location
2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016
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
Clear vegetation at six identified junctions between Baldock and Royston beyond cyclical grass-cutting maintenance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Carried out an assessment of similar junctions on this section of road between Baldock and Royston. This has revealed that of the 11 junctions, 6 require further vegetation clearance over and above what is covered by our cyclical grass cutting maintenance programme. This work is planned to be undertaken in July 2016, subject to weather and other factors outside of our control.”

Source location
2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016
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
Revise highway safety inspectors’ remit to identify vegetation requiring corrective action on this length of road.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Revised the remit for our highway safety inspectors for this length of road to ensure that vegetation of this nature is identified, enabling corrective action to be programmed.”

Source location
2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016
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
Revise the vegetation maintenance regime so tree, shrub and plant-growth cutting is coordinated annually with grass cutting on this length of road.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Revised the maintenance regime for vegetation for this length of road, so that the cutting of trees, shrubs and other plant growth will be carried out in co-ordination with grass cutting on an annual basis.”

Source location
2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016
Open published response
22 Jun2015
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to maintain clear visibility into and approaching 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 concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Visibility at the junction exceeded applicable national guidance, so restricted sight lines were not considered the cause of delayed evasive action.
  Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilDisputes the concern
1. Position
  Hedgerow-cutting enforcement was considered unnecessary because the hedgerows were already situated a safe distance from the carriageway.
  Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilNo action considered necessary
AI-generated summary

Kian Singh GILL · 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

Kian Singh GILL, aged 15, died at the scene of a road traffic accident while cycling into the path of a car at a junction in Gilmorton, Leicestershire, on 5 May 2015. Concerns included overgrown hedgerows obscuring visibility, a lack of junction signage, and the national speed limit remaining in place despite the junction.

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 maintain clear visibility into and approaching the junction
Wider context from the report
“(1) The hedgerows by the side of both roads are overgrown and obscure a driver's view into the junction and the road leading up to it. This meant that neither the rider nor the driver had view of each other until the final moments prior to impact. ”
Source location
Kian Singh GILL · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · 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
Visibility at the junction exceeded applicable national guidance, so restricted sight lines were not considered the cause of delayed evasive action.

Verbatim wording from the response
“11. For traffic positioned at a setback distance of 2.4 metres from the edge of the junction, the minimum visibility distance required for a 60 m.p.h. design speed is 215 metres (please see the table at page “2/4” of Tab 1). The measured visibility from Bonehams Lane was 270 metres looking west and 250m looking east. Relevant photographic evidence arising from the inspections is enclosed at tab 7 of the bundle.”

Source location
Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 22 June 2015
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
Hedgerow-cutting enforcement was considered unnecessary because the hedgerows were already situated a safe distance from the carriageway.

Verbatim wording from the response
“17. Hedgerows are generally owned by the owners of neighbouring land and not therefore the property of the Council. I acknowledge that the Council may enforce restrictions on the expansion of hedgerows under Section 152 of the Highways Act 1980.”

Source location
Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 22 June 2015
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Unsafe layout or line of sight on the approach to 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.2

Concerns raised1

Impaired junction visibility from vehicles waiting to turn

Concerns raised1

Compromised visibility 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.1

Concerns raised1

Inadequate visibility of oncoming traffic for vehicles waiting or turning 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.1

Concerns raised1

Lack of safe visibility and crossing conditions for pedestrians 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.2

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

Concerns raised1

Restricted visibility at the Highmoor Road and Albert Road junction

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

Concerns raised1

Restricted driver visibility of pedestrians 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.1

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

Concerns raised1

Restricted visibility of traffic at the junction

Concerns raised2

Failure to regularly cut back plant growth at road junctions

Plant growth severely restricting drivers’ view at a 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.5

Actions described in response 2

Actions described in response 1

Actions described in response 1

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 2

Actions described in response 5