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.

18 Mar2015
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised1
1. Inadequate visibility at the road traffic 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.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Existing junction design, signalling and gradient comply with applicable design requirements and provide adequate safety controls.
  Stated by Leicester City CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Anais Chantal Thouvenot · 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

Anais Chantal Thouvenot was knocked from her bicycle by a passing vehicle at a road junction in Leicester on 9 November 2014, sustained a serious head injury, and died at Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, on 16 November 2014. Concerns were raised about the junction’s safety, including visibility, inadequate or absent filter lanes, heavy traffic, and the road contour, with reported near misses involving cyclists.

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 at the road traffic junction
Wider context from the report
“During the course of the investigation I was made aware of specific concerns regarding the safety of the road traffic junction at Upper Kings Street and Regent Road, Leicester. These concerns were highlighted to me by the Leicester Cycling Campaign Group (LCCG) and a member of the public ████████ who has also raised these concerns for the attention of Councillors ████████ and ████████. The LCCG have informed me that they believe the junction to be inherently dangerous quoting a number of 'near misses' as experienced by their cycling group. The specific concerns relate to visibility at the junction and absent or inadequate filter lanes, exacerbated by heavy traffic and the contour of the road at this junction. It is also known to be on a major cycle route into the city. ”
Source location
Anais Chantal Thouvenot · 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
Existing junction design, signalling and gradient comply with applicable design requirements and provide adequate safety controls.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The junction design and signalling arrangements have taken account of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 6, Section 2, Part 3 - TD 50/04, The Geometric Layout of Signal Controlled Junction and Signalised Roundabouts). As such, constraints such as existing road geometry, buildings and availability of land have been considered in accordance with TD50/04 and junction inter-visibility has been maximised.”

Source location
2015-0110-Response-by-Leicester-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 18 March 2015
Open published response
14 Nov2014
Sunderland
Concerns raised1
1. Insufficient grass-cutting frequency allowing longer grass to obscure drivers' views
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
  The established spring and autumn maintenance closure programme was considered appropriate for the A690 location.
  Stated by Sunderland City CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Dolores Mary Hubbert · 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

Dolores Mary Hubbert suffered fatal injuries in a vehicle collision at a crossroads on the A690 at East Rainton and was pronounced dead at hospital on 29 August 2014. Her family raised concerns about the safety of the junction, including speed restrictions and the frequency of grass cutting, which might obscure drivers’ views.

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
Insufficient grass-cutting frequency allowing longer grass to obscure drivers' views
Wider context from the report
“The family of Mrs Hubbert expressed concerns to me about the overall safety of the junction and in particular the speed restrictions before and after the junction as well as the policy with regard to the frequency of grass cutting as longer grass may have the potential to obscure the views of drivers. ”
Source location
Dolores Mary Hubbert · 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
The established spring and autumn maintenance closure programme was considered appropriate for the A690 location.

Verbatim wording from the response
“With regards to maintenance activity on the A690, the Council's approach over the years for all principal high speed roads has been to implement a programme of Spring and Autumn closures to facilitate work such as servicing of road gullies, grass cutting, street cleansing, safety barrier and lighting repairs . This year the lane closures on this section of the A690 took place on 27th/28th March and 22nd/23rd September. This schedule was in line with the Council’s intended programme set at the start of the year and is considered to be appropriate to the location in question.”

Source location
Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014
Open published response
2 Jul2014
Manchester North
Concerns raised1
1. Parking bays reducing driver visibility when emerging onto the A58
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
  Review accident history and inspect the junction to assess highway safety issues.
  Stated by Rochdale Borough CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Submit and secure approval for funding to implement the proposed highway safety scheme.
  Stated by Rochdale Borough CouncilStated completed
3. Action
  Implement removal of parking bays and introduction of ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on the A58, including required traffic orders.
  Stated by Rochdale Borough CouncilStated in progress
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The junction was not considered a priority for action because only one personal injury collision had been recorded there in 12 years.
  Stated by Rochdale Borough CouncilNo action considered necessary
AI-generated summary

Miss Beryl Brinkman · 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

Miss Beryl Brinkman was involved in a serious road traffic collision on 8 January 2014 after emerging from an un-adopted side road onto the A58 Featherstall Road. She suffered catastrophic injuries and died at Royal Oldham Hospital on 10 January 2014. Concerns included the proximity of parked vehicles to the junction, reduced driver visibility, the risk of harm to road users and pedestrians, the appropriateness of the parking bays, and whether the side road should be adopted.

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
Parking bays reducing driver visibility when emerging onto the A58
Wider context from the report
“1. The proximity of the parking bays to the junction, resulting in a marked reduction of driver visibility when emerging on to the A58/parked cars are present. ”
Source location
Miss Beryl Brinkman · 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 accident history and inspect the junction to assess highway safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As with any serious and fatal collision, it is normal protocol that on receipt of the Police Incident Report the Road Safety Team carries out a full review and site visit to determine any possible highway issues which may have had an impact on the accident.”

Source location
2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014
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
Submit and secure approval for funding to implement the proposed highway safety scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“A commissioning form was submitted to Pennines Township for funding on the 23rd January and agreed approval on the 18th February. The Network Management Team is currently working on the scheme and the introducing the waiting restrictions.”

Source location
2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014
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 removal of parking bays and introduction of ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on the A58, including required traffic orders.

Verbatim wording from the response
“A commissioning form was submitted to Pennines Township for funding on the 23rd January and agreed approval on the 18th February. The Network Management Team is currently working on the scheme and the introducing the waiting restrictions.”

Source location
2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014
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 was not considered a priority for action because only one personal injury collision had been recorded there in 12 years.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In order to build up a picture of any previous incidents the accident database was reviewed and results showed that there had been only one recorded personal injury accident at this junction in the last 12 years, as such; the site was not on the priority list for action.”

Source location
2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Inadequate visibility at the road traffic junction

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

Concerns raised1

Insufficient grass-cutting frequency allowing longer grass to obscure drivers' views

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

Concerns raised1

Parking bays reducing driver visibility when emerging onto the A58

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

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

Respondent positions 1

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 1