Includes failures of road-marking controls on public roads, including absence, deterioration, illegibility, inadequate prominence, failure to highlight hazards and inadequate assessment or specification of required markings, where the marking deficiency creates a road-safety risk.
What is not included
Excludes road signage, street lighting, road layout, visibility or surface defects when no road-marking deficiency is identified.
Excludes generic highway maintenance, inspection or risk-assessment failures unless they directly concern the provision, condition or assessment of road markings.
Excludes markings dedicated to non-road settings, such as railway platforms, unless the assertion concerns public-road markings.
Excludes the underlying hazard, such as a pothole or unsafe junction, when the road-marking control is not itself deficient.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
National Highways8
Department for Transport5
Office of the Chief Coroner4
Recipient name withheld3
Durham County Council2
Transport for London2
Apple (UK) Limited1
Avon and Somerset Constabulary1
Bath and North East Somerset Council1
Bury Borough Council1
Calderdale Borough Council1
Cheshire West and Chester Council1
Cornwall Council1
Daughter of the deceased1
Duchy of Cornwall1
English unitary authority9
National road infrastructure body8
Type not available7
Ministerial department5
Coronial office4
English metropolitan district council4
London borough council2
Police force2
Public transport authority2
Sub-organisation2
Combined authority1
Company1
Devolved government1
English county council1
English district council1
Reports and published responses 34 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised1
Failure of road markings to prevent prohibited overtaking and right turns
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Department for Transport
Moss Farm shop
National Highways
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
National Highways
Conduct a site visit and discuss observed traffic movements and overtaking at the A5 location.
National Highways
Investigate road markings, signing and carriageway layout on the A5 within National Highways’ jurisdiction to identify potential overtaking mitigation measures.
Moss Farm shop
Install a no-right-turn sign at the Moss Farm shop car-park exit.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.6
National Highways
Staffordshire Police is responsible for enforcing the double white line system.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Moss Farm shop
Enforcement of the road layout and guidance to road users is outside the respondent’s authority.
Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Moss Farm shop
Enforcement of signed road rules and road markings is assigned to the highways department and police.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Department for Transport
National Highways is responsible for deciding appropriate road markings and signing at the specific site on its strategic road network.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Department for Transport
The prescribed double white line marking and its inclusion in the Highway Code are considered sufficient for drivers to understand its meaning.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Department for Transport
The evidence does not necessarily show that drivers misunderstand the double white line marking; a site-specific factor may explain non-compliance.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Black Country
Concerns raised1
Lack of central road markings
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Sandwell Borough Council
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Sandwell Borough Council
Introduce improved centre-line markings and parking bays on High Street where feasible.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised1
Absence of road markings on the approach to the hump back bridge
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Staffordshire County Council
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Staffordshire County Council
Install additional road markings on the B5012 at Pillaton as part of the planned surface treatment programme.
West Yorkshire (Western)
Concerns raised1
Lack of road markings advising on appropriate speed or road curvature ahead
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
National Highways
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
National Highways
Calderdale Council is responsible for the A672 carriageway and immediate slip-road interface beyond National Highways’ boundary, including associated signs and markings.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Milton Keynes
Concerns raised1
Failure to maintain adequate visibility of road-surface No Entry markings at the slip-road junction
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Milton Keynes City Council
National Highways
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
National Highways
Complete a full safety review of the junction against the current Wrong Way Driving: Mitigation Toolkit.
National Highways
Continue developing enhanced A5 off-slip mitigation options and establish which measures will be progressed, including improved signage and road markings.
Milton Keynes City Council
Inspect the junction and assess signage and road markings for safety defects.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4
National Highways
The junction already has all standard wrong-way-driving mitigation measures required by the current toolkit.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Milton Keynes City Council
Existing signage and road markings appeared adequate under applicable regulations, although illumination might improve the no-entry signage.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Milton Keynes City Council
The council has no powers to improve the junction mouth, signage or road markings because these are outside its highway authority functions.
Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Milton Keynes City Council
National Highways is responsible for the slip road junction, its signage and road markings, so it must undertake related improvements.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised1
Deficient road markings
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Durham County Council
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Durham County Council
Refresh road markings in the vicinity of the accident.
Durham County Council
Continue scheduled highway safety inspections to assess condition and identify issues meeting investigatory levels for remedial action.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Durham County Council
Scheduled highway safety inspections will identify issues meeting investigatory levels for remedial action, providing the ongoing response to highway-condition concerns.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
East Riding and Hull
Concerns raised1
Failure to set a timescale for assessment of additional road markings
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Visibility is suitable for the 40mph limit and existing hazard warning centre lines are appropriate; no additional works are planned.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
Concerns raised1
Fading and disappearance of deflection arrows on the road
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
County Durham and Darlington
Concerns raised2
Lack of double white hazard warning lines at a reduced-visibility bend
Failure to ensure consistent speed-limit messaging through road markings and signs
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Durham County Council
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Durham County Council
Remove the two SLOW road markings.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Durham County Council
Double white hazard lines will not be installed because the road does not meet the intervention criteria and the accident did not involve overtaking.
No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
Gwent
Concerns raised1
Lack of double white lines restricting overtaking on the A468
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.