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.

9 Apr2025
North Wales (East and Central)
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to maintain adequate visibility from 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 2
1. Action
  Assess the junction through the Road Safety Officer to identify visibility and other safety improvements.
  Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Raise the junction sign to improve visibility.
  Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Finalising junction improvement proposals is deferred pending the planned collision reconstruction outcome.
  Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Emma Jane Hill · 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

Emma Jane Hill was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle that collided with a motor vehicle at a junction on the A534, and she sustained fatal injuries. Concerns were raised that obstructed visibility, vehicles travelling at speed, the road layout and previous collisions in the area created an ongoing risk of further collisions and loss of life.

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 adequate visibility from the junction
Wider context from the report
“Following discussions with the Roads Traffic Policing Unit of North Wales Police, I am concerned that although at this location the A534 is a comparatively straight stretch road, the visibility from the junction when turning right out of the village in the direction of Wrexham may on occasions be obstructed by signage and/or by vehicles which are slowing to turn into the village. Furthermore as this straight stretch of road is subject to a national speed limit following a 40 mph zone, traffic may be accelerating or travelling at speed, thus creating risk both for persons exiting the junction and traffic which is continuing along the main road. It is also my understanding that there have been previous collisions in this vicinity in the past. Unless action is taken to improve visibility, reduce the speed of traffic or to alter the road layout, then there is an ongoing risk that further collisions will occur and that lives may be lost as a result. ”
Source location
Emma Jane Hill · 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
Assess the junction through the Road Safety Officer to identify visibility and other safety improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Additionally, the location has been assessed by our Road Safety Officer. It has been determined that the junction would benefit from some minor alterations and we have already raised the sign on the junction to improve visibility. The other improvements can be achieved with amendments to the road markings. We have been notified by North Wales Police that a reconstruction of the collision is planned for the week commencing 2 June 2025 and therefore it would be prudent to await the outcome of that ahead of finalising our proposals. The implementation of the road marking alterations will be commissioned when the speed limit TRO consultation outcome has been determined.”

Source location
Response from Wrexham County Borough Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 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
Raise the junction sign to improve visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Additionally, the location has been assessed by our Road Safety Officer. It has been determined that the junction would benefit from some minor alterations and we have already raised the sign on the junction to improve visibility. The other improvements can be achieved with amendments to the road markings. We have been notified by North Wales Police that a reconstruction of the collision is planned for the week commencing 2 June 2025 and therefore it would be prudent to await the outcome of that ahead of finalising our proposals. The implementation of the road marking alterations will be commissioned when the speed limit TRO consultation outcome has been determined.”

Source location
Response from Wrexham County Borough Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 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
Finalising junction improvement proposals is deferred pending the planned collision reconstruction outcome.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Additionally, the location has been assessed by our Road Safety Officer. It has been determined that the junction would benefit from some minor alterations and we have already raised the sign on the junction to improve visibility. The other improvements can be achieved with amendments to the road markings. We have been notified by North Wales Police that a reconstruction of the collision is planned for the week commencing 2 June 2025 and therefore it would be prudent to await the outcome of that ahead of finalising our proposals. The implementation of the road marking alterations will be commissioned when the speed limit TRO consultation outcome has been determined.”

Source location
Response from Wrexham County Borough Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 2025
Open published response
16 Aug2023
Lincolnshire
Concerns raised1
1. 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 1
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 planned
Respondent positions 1
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 sufficient
AI-generated summary

Absolom Adolphus Abraham Zephaniah DUFFY · 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

Absolom Duffy was travelling in his Land Rover Defender when he exited Sand Lane, Saxilby, onto Doddington Road and collided with another vehicle; he died from his injuries. The concern was whether the junction would be safer with a stop command rather than a give-way warning because of its restricted view.

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 junction signage to require stopping where visibility of the major road is restricted
Wider context from the report
“The B1190 Tom Otter’s Lane junction with the C267 Sand Lane, Saxilby, Lincolnshire provides for the road user approaching from either direction on Sand Lane to give way to traffic on the major B1190 road. There is a restricted view of the B1190 as a road user approaches the junction. To be certain the B1190 road is clear a road user would be required to stop, however the road signage only requires a road user to give way. Would the junction be safer for road users if it displayed a stop command rather than a give way warning? ”
Source location
Absolom Adolphus Abraham Zephaniah DUFFY · 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
Regularly assess vegetation at the junction approaches and take enforcement action to maintain maximum visibility and unobstructed visibility splays.

Verbatim wording from the response
“• Vegetation at approaches to this junction will be assessed regularly by the Local Highways team, with appropriate enforcement action taken to ensure that it gives maximum visibility and does not reduce the splays when exiting onto the B1190.”

Source location
Response from Lincolnshire Council
Page 3 · response
Published 6 September 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
Existing Give Way signage will not be changed because junction visibility substantially exceeds the distance at which a Stop sign might be considered.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The visibility distance below which a STOP sign might be considered at this location is 90m (based on using 85th percentile speed of 60mph) as specified in Table 2.1 of Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3.”

Source location
Response from Lincolnshire Council
Page 2 · response
Published 6 September 2023
Open published response
22 May2023
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Concerns raised1
1. Visibility deficiencies between downhill traffic and cars exiting the roundabout
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

KAIUS JOHN PAUL TUTT · 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

Kaius John Paul Tutt died from multiple injuries after the motorcycle he was riding collided with a car on the A391 near St Austell on 14 October 2022. The principal concerns were faded or missing road-marking deflection arrows, visibility issues at the collision location, and the limited benefit of the downhill overtaking opportunity. The report also records a recommendation to amend the road layout, with no funding then available to facilitate it.

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
Visibility deficiencies between downhill traffic and cars exiting the roundabout
Wider context from the report
“(2) The court found that there were visibility issues for those travelling downhill viewing cars exiting roundabout and vice versa. ”
Source location
KAIUS JOHN PAUL TUTT · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
27 Sep2022
South Wales Central
Concerns raised1
1. Poor visibility at the Goitre Lane and Gurnos Ring Road 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.

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

Aaron David Edwards · 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

Aaron David Edwards, aged 42, died at the scene on 30 August 2020 after his motorcycle collided with a car at a junction in Merthyr Tydfil. The concerns identified were poor visibility at the junction, additional traffic and parked cars near a school during pick-up and drop-off times, and the risk of further deaths if driver speeds were not reduced.

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
Poor visibility at the Goitre Lane and Gurnos Ring Road junction
Wider context from the report
“(1) The junction of Goitre Lane and the Gurnos Ring Road appears to be dangerous. Visibility is poor for the driver entering the Ring Road due to the bend in the road to the right and the railings protecting a subway below. (2) Traffic and parked cars around this area at the nearby school Pen-Y-Dre at pick-up and drop off times add to this danger. (3) Unless changes are made to slow down drivers on the Gurnos Ring Road more deaths may occur. ”
Source location
Aaron David Edwards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
25 Jul2022
Suffolk
Concerns raised1
1. Severely restricted visibility for cyclists and pedestrians approaching Higher Drive
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.

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

Ethan Jake Wright · 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

Ethan Jake Wright died on 18 November 2021 after sustaining serious head injuries when the bicycle he was riding collided with a van in Lowestoft. The principal concern was that the junction where the bridleway joined Higher Drive had severely restricted visibility and no physical barrier or other measure to make cyclists or fast-moving pedestrians slow down before entering 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
Severely restricted visibility for cyclists and pedestrians approaching Higher Drive
Wider context from the report
“In evidence it was heard that the public bridleway, Woods Lake West, is predominantly used by pedestrians and cyclists. As part of the police investigation, photographs were provided that showed the area where Woods Lake West joins Higher Drive. Woods Lake West joins Higher Drive at approximately a 90-degree angle and vehicle access to the Lake is prevented by two concrete bollards. These bollards are placed wide enough apart as not to cause a hinderance to either cyclists or pedestrians. When cycling from Woods Lake West onto Higher Drive, the view afforded of Higher Drive is severely restricted by fencing, and it is only once a cyclist or pedestrian is on the pavement of Higher Drive itself, are they afforded any view of the main road to their right. This is the direction of travel of the van with which Ethan collided. The police officer who investigated Ethan's tragic death, stated in evidence that there was no physical barrier, or any other measure in place, that would make a cyclist or fast-moving pedestrian slow down before entering Higher Drive. The police officer was particularly concerned about children using the Lake as a cycle path, as these young riders have a much lower perception of risk. The officer was of the opinion that some physical means of preventing direct access onto Higher Drive from Woods Lake West, or some other measure to ensure a cyclist or fast-moving pedestrian slowed down on approaching Higher Drive, would prevent a further tragedy at this location. ”
Source location
Ethan Jake Wright · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
13 May2022
Manchester West
Concerns raised1
1. Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way
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.

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

Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · 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

Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl died from injuries sustained in a road traffic collision at the junction of Cadishead Way and Fairhills Road, Irlam, on 23 June 2021. The concerns related to the junction’s busy layout, a 50 mph speed limit, restricted visibility caused by the bend, bridge, trees and bushes, and the absence of traffic signals.

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 for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way
Wider context from the report
“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam. b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction. c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam. d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view. 2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam: a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam. c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth. d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. ”
Source location
Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
9 May2022
North Wales (East and Central)
Concerns raised1
1. Obstructed visibility for vehicles joining the A525 from Green Lane
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
  Cut the hedge bordering the A525 and Hollybush House to improve visibility.
  Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Speak with Hollybush House’s new occupier about maintaining the hedge bordering the A525.
  Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilStated planned
3. Action
  Make a Traffic Regulation Order restricting Green Lane to one-way traffic from the A525 direction.
  Stated by Wrexham County Borough CouncilStated planned
AI-generated summary

Michael Howard Williams · 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

Michael Howard Williams died at the scene after his motorcycle collided with a motor car turning onto the A525 from Green Lane. The inquest evidence indicated that a hedge obstructed the view for vehicles joining the A525, creating an ongoing risk of further collisions and loss of life unless visibility or the road layout is improved.

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
Obstructed visibility for vehicles joining the A525 from Green Lane
Wider context from the report
“The evidence at inquest, supported by a site visit by me to the scene, indicated that the view for vehicles joining the A525 at this location from Green Lane is obstructed as to traffic approaching from the Wrexham direction as a result of the hedge which abuts the highway at this point. Unless action is taken to improve visibility or to alter the road layout, then there is an ongoing risk that further collisions will occur and that lives may be lost as a result. ”
Source location
Michael Howard Williams · 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
Cut the hedge bordering the A525 and Hollybush House to improve visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I would confirm that we will be cutting the hedge which borders the A525 and the premises of Hollybush House, at this present time the house is in the process of being sold, but we will be speaking to the new owner when they take up occupancy regarding the maintenance of the hedge.”

Source location
Response from Wrexham County Borough Council
Page 1 · response
Published 10 May 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
Speak with Hollybush House’s new occupier about maintaining the hedge bordering the A525.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I would confirm that we will be cutting the hedge which borders the A525 and the premises of Hollybush House, at this present time the house is in the process of being sold, but we will be speaking to the new owner when they take up occupancy regarding the maintenance of the hedge.”

Source location
Response from Wrexham County Borough Council
Page 1 · response
Published 10 May 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
Make a Traffic Regulation Order restricting Green Lane to one-way traffic from the A525 direction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“It is the intention of the Authority to make a Traffic Regulation Order on Green Lane to make the road one way from the direction of the A525. This will not allow vehicles to exit Green Lane onto the A525, which will avoid vehicles entering the A525 where there is limited visibility.”

Source location
Response from Wrexham County Borough Council
Page 1 · response
Published 10 May 2022
Open published response
3 Feb2022
Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon
Concerns raised1
1. Sun glare hazard impairing driver 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.

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

Harry Edward Simmons · 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

Harry Edward Simmons, aged 87, was struck by a car while crossing Montpellier Road in Plymouth and later died in hospital from his injuries. The report raised concerns about drivers cutting the junction, the effect of sun on visibility, and the risk of further collisions at the junction; three collisions had occurred there in the previous five 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
Sun glare hazard impairing driver visibility at the junction
Wider context from the report
“(1) Acting Police Inspector ████████ gave evidence to the inquest as follows: 1. In his opinion as Mr Simmons was at least ½ way across the road if the driver had not turned into the junction on the incorrect side of the road, he would have most likely avoided him. 2. The sun is a particular hazard at that junction and would have had an effect on the ability of the driver to see Mr Simmons. 3. Double yellow lines in his opinion would not prevent a further accident of this nature. 4. A pedestrian refuge in the centre of the road on the junction of Montpellier Road and Beacon Park Road together with a keep left sign would prevent vehicles cutting the corner and causing a similar accident again. 5. There have been 3 collisions on this junction in the last 5 years, 2 of which have cited the sun as a contributory factor. 6. There is local knowledge to suggest that drivers cutting this corner is a commonplace occurrence as the sharp turn right to the correct side of the road is a more difficult manoeuvre to make. ”
Source location
Harry Edward Simmons · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
21 Jul2021
Norfolk
Concerns raised1
1. Reduced junction visibility at night and in inclement weather
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 3
1. Action
  Implement highway safety measures including centre hatching, bend chevrons, sign relocations, visibility controls, slow markings, vegetation cutting and junction warning triggers.
  Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Investigate whether STOP markings and signs were warranted at the junctions under national guidance.
  Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completed
3. Action
  Review visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.
  Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated planned
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  STOP markings and signs are not warranted because junction visibility meets applicable national guidance requirements.
  Stated by Norfolk County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficient
1. Position
  Junction mirrors cannot be installed because they are not authorised or recommended due to potential glare and distance-judgement risks.
  Stated by Norfolk County CouncilUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Oscar Anthony SEAMAN · 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

Oscar Anthony Seaman, aged 17, was killed after cycling onto the A134 carriageway at a crossroads in Northwold and being struck by a 4x4 vehicle. Concerns included repeated collisions and speeding on the road, reduced visibility at the junction, and the absence of stop signs, with possible measures including speed cameras and a junction mirror discussed.

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
Reduced junction visibility at night and in inclement weather
Wider context from the report
“I am informed that the road where Oscar was killed is the scene of at least 126 road traffic collisions. The speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, but this has not deterred people using the road from ignoring the limits. The crossroads where Oscar, who was just 17 years old, emerged onto the main road has give way signs but not stop signs painted on it. The view from one direction appears to be reasonable in daylight but at night, and if the weather is inclement, visibility is reduced. The person who lives on the corner of that junction has had to buttress his garden fence against collisions. The parish council has reported many concerns about people speeding on the road specially HGV lorries as well as cars. It is apparent that people regularly break the law on this stretch of road and that a speed camera or average speed cameras would address the problem and slow motorists down. A mirror would be able to be placed at the junction, an inexpensive but important item which is likely to reduce death and accident when people venture onto the main highway. ”
Source location
Oscar Anthony SEAMAN · 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
Implement highway safety measures including centre hatching, bend chevrons, sign relocations, visibility controls, slow markings, vegetation cutting and junction warning triggers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“There have been a number of highway safety interventions introduced to include: red centre hatch treatment, provision of bend warning chevron boards which better reflect the alignment of the bend to the southeast, sign relocations, provision of hedges to control visibility, provision of ‘Slow’ markings on the carriageway, cutting back of other vegetation, and addition of side road triggers to the existing junction warning vehicle activated signs. In addition to the above interventions, the speed limit was reduced to 50mph in response to this incident. In light of your comments concerning vehicle speed, it is agreed that NCC will undertake speed surveys to measure driver compliance.”

Source location
2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 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
Investigate whether STOP markings and signs were warranted at the junctions under national guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.”

Source location
2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 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
Review visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.”

Source location
2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 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
STOP markings and signs are not warranted because junction visibility meets applicable national guidance requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response
“With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.”

Source location
2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 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
Junction mirrors cannot be installed because they are not authorised or recommended due to potential glare and distance-judgement risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“I acknowledge your observation concerning the provision of a mirror at the junction. I regret that the installation of mirrors is not authorised or recommended by the County Council. This is because mirrors can dazzle highway users and can affect driver’s ability to judge the distance of on-coming traffic.”

Source location
2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021
Open published response
22 Dec2020
Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin
Concerns raised1
1. Inadequate visibility for right turns from the driveway or failure to deter turning
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 1
1. Position
  Property owners, not Highways England, are responsible for improving visibility because the relevant walls, fences and hedgerows are privately owned.
  Stated by National HighwaysRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Daniel Mark HUGHES · 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

Daniel Mark HUGHES died at the scene after his motorcycle collided with a motorcar on the A483 at Sweeney near Oswestry on 4 June 2017. The report raised concerns about visibility from a driveway near a blind bend, the appropriateness of the speed limit, and whether a warning of the concealed driveway should be displayed.

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 for right turns from the driveway or failure to deter turning
Wider context from the report
“The motorist concerned was turning right from the driveway of a property approximately 90 meters south of a blind bend. There was little or no margin of error in crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. There are specific areas of concern: 1) Whether and how visibility to the right may be improved or turning deterred. 2) Whether the speed limit at the bend is appropriate. 3) Whether a warning of a concealed driveway could be displayed. ”
Source location
Daniel Mark HUGHES · 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
Property owners, not Highways England, are responsible for improving visibility because the relevant walls, fences and hedgerows are privately owned.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Responsibility for the visibility exiting a property entrance is that of the property owner and not Highways England. Any steps to improve the visibility would also require amendments to boundary walls, fences and hedgerows on land which is not owned by Highways England. Therefore, no action is proposed.”

Source location
2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 8 January 2021
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Failure to maintain adequate visibility from 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

Failure of junction signage to require stopping where visibility of the major road is restricted

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.1

Concerns raised1

Visibility deficiencies between downhill traffic and cars exiting the roundabout

Concerns raised1

Poor visibility at the Goitre Lane and Gurnos Ring Road junction

Concerns raised1

Severely restricted visibility for cyclists and pedestrians approaching Higher Drive

Concerns raised1

Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way

Concerns raised1

Obstructed visibility for vehicles joining the A525 from Green Lane

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

Concerns raised1

Sun glare hazard impairing driver visibility at the junction

Concerns raised1

Reduced junction visibility at night and in inclement weather

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.2

Concerns raised1

Inadequate visibility for right turns from the driveway or failure to deter turning

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

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 3

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 2

Respondent positions 1