Bad traffic enforcement

[Harpo]

Sorry, hope I didn't come across as rude.

Definitely not. Don’t worry.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Anyone lawfully driving.

Indeed. But not what you originally said. There's a difference.

 

[Shrop]

The solution is a cultural change in how we drive alongside proper enforcement. People should drive their cars responsibly and defensively and they should be much more aware of how accidents happen (my wife routinely drives alongside lorries in their blind spot!!). All drivers should be shown graphic footage of car accidents and pedestrian collisons. Every day you get into the car you should think "you could kill someone today if you're not careful". How we get there is a long road.

Yes, well summarised.

I fundamentally disagree with @Tetchytyke that people drive well simply because they've passed their test, it's a cast iron fact that a great many crashes/accidents are caused by those who have passed their tests. However, it is nevertheless also true that driving habits can quickly become very different when the instructor/examiner is no longer present.

It is precisely for this reason that repeat tests would be beneficial, because this would naturally focus people's minds very much more regularly on to the rights and wrongs of driving habits. Indeed if re-tests were every ten years then a great many drivers would, at all times, know someone or know of someone who is having to face their re-test in the forseeable future.

Thus driving becomes a valuable and regular talking point, rather than just something which too often only gets talked (or rather ranted) about in the context of the poor driving of someone else. As for financing this, well it's a great way to create thousands of jobs, and the cost of perhaps a couple of hundred pounds for a re-test is tiny compared to all the others costs that people pay for running their cars. And also well worthwhile if it improves road safety.

We should all be mindful that people regularly complain about "the traffic" causing them delays, but in fact they themselves are that very traffic which is holding up everybody else. Then similarly, hordes of people complain about bad drivers as soon as they next have someone to vent to, and let's face it, the vast majority of us do vent in this way. But who are those bad drivers? It's very often the very ones among us who are doing the venting, who just happen to also be those bad drivers in the eyes of others.

So it's a multi-faceted thing. We need repeat driving tests, we need much better (and more appropriate) enforcement, and we also need politicians to stop being so pathetically weak about this scourge of modern living which kills and seriously injures such vast numbers of people. They need to stop being so weak and focus people's minds on it. It's not even that politically risky to do if it's marketed correctly either.

I genuinely don't want to stop anyone from driving - unless they do so in a manner which endangers others. How we arrive at this point is certainly not something that I have all the answers to, but burying our heads in the sand about something which kills and injures so many people every single day is nothing more than a cowardly and grossly irresponsible way to behave.

I think it's absolutely right to air and discuss this further.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I fundamentally disagree with @Tetchytyke that people drive well simply because they've passed their test

I didn’t say that.

I said that repeat testing wouldn’t stop them driving badly.

 

[blimmo]

Every car I've driven with cruise control has supported setting the speed to the current speed of the car. The only way I've ever had to set a different speed is to come out of cruise control (typically by braking) and then flick the switch to accelerate back to the previous speed setting.

Yes, I also mostly use this but I often want to set the limiter to 30 when entering a 30 zone and I am often not doing 30 at the time. It just irks me that the car thinks it's 30 but doesn't have a simple one button way to set the limiter at that speed.

"Good" road design can actually be bad, by making drivers feel safe and drive faster.

Absolutely. I was not measuring "good" as easiest to drive on, rather as minimising deaths. Things like smaller corner radii make city streets much safer.

And yet every single driver has surely heard of the two second rule?

I would like to point out that the two seconds rule was invented when cars had far worse brakes than most do today. Mind, I still mostly follow it since I'd rather be safe and it just leads to a more relaxing driving experience when you don't have to react almost instantly to any braking in front of you.

I can think of one badly-designed road - it is where the M275 off Portsea Isle (Portsmouth) joins with the M27 (east). Two 70mph roads, two lanes each, merge and become one three-lane carriageway. M27's outer lane merges with M275's inner lane; but the merge is almost "blind" due to elevation and curvature of each M-way; oh and thick foliage blocking the view of each road, until the actual lane-joining.

On the flip-side, I struggle to see how behaviours I mentioned up-thread (linked) will be any different, as they occur daily on already well-designed, highly-visible roads.

Bad traffic enforcement

In a technologically advanced country with a supposed interest in road safety, why do we have to put up with such woefully inadequate traffic enforcement systems? Rail systems are pretty good these days, especially when it comes to driver behaviour which carries heavy sanctions for breaking...

www.railforums.co.uk

I was thinking more about city streets than motorways. I think most motorway design in the UK is fairly high quality. The problem is when those design principles are applied to city streets which then causes drivers to drive like they're on the motorway which causes crashes regardless of how well the driver was driving.

it's a cast iron fact that a great many crashes/accidents are caused by those who have passed their tests.

A great many crashes also happen to people who are excellent drivers.

 

[JamesT]

I would like to point out that the two seconds rule was invented when cars had far worse brakes than most do today. Mind, I still mostly follow it since I'd rather be safe and it just leads to a more relaxing driving experience when you don't have to react almost instantly to any braking in front of you.

The quality of brakes doesn't affect the two second rule. Two seconds is roughly enough time for you to react to someone braking ahead. Then the assumption is that if you start braking before you got to the point where the driver ahead was braking then you have a better chance of avoiding collision.
Though it does make the assumption that everyone is braking at a similar rate.

 

[blimmo]

The quality of brakes doesn't affect the two second rule. Two seconds is roughly enough time for you to react to someone braking ahead. Then the assumption is that if you start braking before you got to the point where the driver ahead was braking then you have a better chance of avoiding collision.
Though it does make the assumption that everyone is braking at a similar rate.

I don't think two seconds can just be reaction time since the highway code says:

allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on high-speed roads and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and up to ten times greater on icy roads

If this was supposed to just be reaction time then there would be no account for road surface conditions?

 

[edwin_m]

The stopping distances are at https://highwaycode.org.uk/stopping-distances-rule-126/

As is the quote in #94. They are clearly split into thinking distance (blue) and braking distance (red). The thinking distance in metres is 0.3 times the speed in mph and the thinking time works out to be 0.675s.

 

[Shrop]

I didn’t say that.

I said that repeat testing wouldn’t stop them driving badly.

And your evidence for that is ...???

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2026 ==

I would like to point out that the two seconds rule was invented when cars had far worse brakes than most do today. Mind, I still mostly follow it since I'd rather be safe and it just leads to a more relaxing driving experience when you don't have to react almost instantly to any braking in front of you.

Cars might not have had such good brakes many years ago, but neither did they have the acceleration capabilities. Nor anything like the volumes of traffic that are around today. Nor distractions like Satnavs. Nor most of the many of the other control systems which require focussing on the multiple screen displays, rather than just putting your fingers onto a button or switch which could often be done without even needing to take your eyes off the road.

A great many crashes also happen to people who are excellent drivers.

Excellent drivers are generally pretty good at getting out of hazardous situations, or not putting themselves into the firing line in the first place. Or are you talking about the large numbers of collisions where excellent drivers are involved in situations that are not of their own making? (in which case the blame should perhaps lie with the less than excellent drivers or other road users).

 

[edwin_m]

Excellent drivers are generally pretty good at getting out of hazardous situations, or not putting themselves into the firing line in the first place. Or are you talking about the large numbers of collisions where excellent drivers are involved in situations that are not of their own making? (in which case the blame should perhaps lie with the less than excellent drivers or other road users).

A lot of the problem is drivers that think they are excellent, but are actually less than.

There's also a moral argument that other road users should be considered blameless. They don't have any special training beyond maybe the Green Cross Code, they may be very young or very old, and the presence of motorised vehicles makes getting around slower, less safe and less convenient for them. By contrast a driver is in a relatively comfortable their vehicle and will almost always come off unscathed in a collision with a more vulnerable road user.

 

[35B]

A lot of the problem is drivers that think they are excellent, but are actually less than.

There's also a moral argument that other road users should be considered blameless. They don't have any special training beyond maybe the Green Cross Code, they may be very young or very old, and the presence of motorised vehicles makes getting around slower, less safe and less convenient for them. By contrast a driver is in a relatively comfortable their vehicle and will almost always come off unscathed in a collision with a more vulnerable road user.

I disagree with the default assumption of moral blamelessness for non-drivers. I'll cut some slack for children running out into the road, as children will be children. Similarly, where the elderly or disabled need extra time to cross, that should be given them. But where pedestrians or cyclists put themselves in places of danger, the moral cause should be apportioned based on the assumption that they and the involved drivers bear responsibility for their own conduct.

 

[The exile]

I disagree with the default assumption of moral blamelessness for non-drivers. I'll cut some slack for children running out into the road, as children will be children. Similarly, where the elderly or disabled need extra time to cross, that should be given them. But where pedestrians or cyclists put themselves in places of danger, the moral cause should be apportioned based on the assumption that they and the involved drivers bear responsibility for their own conduct.

Would agree - in terms of road safety, I still try to stick to the maxim that my father drummed into a five-year-old about-to-be cyclist over half a century ago - namely always to assume that other road users are going to do something stupid. It’s served me well on all but two occasions so far (and on one of those I think I chose the lesser of two evils).

 

[Tetchytyke]

And your evidence for that is ...???

The fact that everyone* who drives badly has successfully passed their driving test.

(*who is driving lawfully)

As I said before, repeat testing may catch the occasional really really stupid person who tailgates or speeds during their repeat driving test. But otherwise, no. Even the biggest tailgating throbber of a Tesla driver would surely wind it in during a repeat driving test.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

As I say, repeat testing may catch the occasional really really stupid person who tailgates or speeds during their repeat driving test. But otherwise, no. Even the biggest tailgating throbber of a Tesla driver would surely wind it in during a repeat driving test.

While I agree about the obvious bad practice, there are loads of things I bet people would get caught out on, I would imagine bad indicator use to be one of them.

 

[greatkingrat]

Let's not forget that we have one of the lowest road death rates in the world. That's not to say nothing can be improved, but reading this thread you would assume we had one of the worst death rates.

 

[Shrop]

Let's not forget that we have one of the lowest road death rates in the world. That's not to say nothing can be improved, but reading this thread you would assume we had one of the worst death rates.

You've fallen straight into the complacency trap. We have pretty safe airlines and railways too, but we don't take the view that we can cut back on maintenance etc. as a result, because we want to keep up those high safety standards.

Road safety in the UK might be better than in many other countries, but the statistics that I've given upthread show that there's still plenty of room for improvement. As do the bad driving habits that we all witness.

If it's fairly straightforward to make improvements, and it certainly is, then not doing so is arguably negligent.

 

[35B]

You've fallen straight into the complacency trap. We have pretty safe airlines and railways too, but we don't take the view that we can cut back on maintenance etc. as a result, because we want to keep up those high safety standards.

Road safety in the UK might be better than in many other countries, but the statistics that I've given upthread show that there's still plenty of room for improvement. As do the bad driving habits that we all witness.

If it's fairly straightforward to make improvements, and it certainly is, then not doing so is arguably negligent.

Is it that straightforward? That's not to dispute that the deaths and injuries are too high, but to question the marginal cost of each incident avoided. For clarity, that is then not about "putting a price on a life" but suggesting that the argument that we must keep on going doesn't necessarily generate results that match the effort - see also discussions around rail safety

 

[Shrop]

The fact that everyone* who drives badly has successfully passed their driving test.

(*who is driving lawfully)

As I said before, repeat testing may catch the occasional really really stupid person who tailgates or speeds during their repeat driving test. But otherwise, no. Even the biggest tailgating throbber of a Tesla driver would surely wind it in during a repeat driving test.

No, I still disagree. I think that if we were both obliged to take tests more regularly, AND there was better and more appropriate enforcement of traffic laws, then drivers would focus more and develop better habits. Ie. more respect for the road, other road users etc.

As a slight aside, I've recently seen two accidents near to where I live, bad enough to involve all 3 emergency services, and I spoke to the police both times. (NOT intrusively as I've worked with them previously and have a fair sense of when to back off, so just politely ). Their views were that they couldn't do much, even though there were clearly things worthy of further investigation and reporting. They took the view that the insurance companies would pay out regardless.

So the drivers could have been given some degree of education in the light of what had happened, but they were just left to go home instead (via hospital). The default police position of "too much paperwork" is understandable, but culturally we default to this too easily.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2026 ==

Is it that straightforward? That's not to dispute that the deaths and injuries are too high, but to question the marginal cost of each incident avoided. For clarity, that is then not about "putting a price on a life" but suggesting that the argument that we must keep on going doesn't necessarily generate results that match the effort - see also discussions around rail safety

Yes, starting with in-car audible warnings when following too close. Similar in-car warnings which increase in volume the more that speed limits are exceeded. Cameras at more junctions which issue fines for crossing on red lights, or for not indicating when making a clear right turn at roundabouts.

And importantly, ring fencing of the fines system so that the fines pay for the enforcement, rather than disappearing into the Government's coffers!

 

[JamesT]

Mandatory retesting is unlikely to be practical.
There are approximately 40 million licence holders in the UK. So if you need a retest every 10 years then that's 4 million a year at least. Presumably plus some more to account for those who fail the first time. (What happens if they do? Is their existing licence immediately revoked?) In the 2024/25 financial year, there were just under 2.8 million tests conducted.
So you're looking at roughly tripling the capacity of the testing system, which has already been described as being under massive strain at its current level.

 

[JohnofWessex]

What about enforcement?

I think t was in Victoria (Australia) that the average driver gets stopped once every three years for drink & drugs tests. This means that drivers realise that the rules will be enforced.

In the same way of course we need proper accident investigation in particular I suggest for the 25% of RTC's that dont involve another road user

 

[35B]

No, I still disagree. I think that if we were both obliged to take tests more regularly, AND there was better and more appropriate enforcement of traffic laws, then drivers would focus more and develop better habits. Ie. more respect for the road, other road users etc.

As a slight aside, I've recently seen two accidents near to where I live, bad enough to involve all 3 emergency services, and I spoke to the police both times. (NOT intrusively as I've worked with them previously and have a fair sense of when to back off, so just politely ). Their views were that they couldn't do much, even though there were clearly things worthy of further investigation and reporting. They took the view that the insurance companies would pay out regardless.

So the drivers could have been given some degree of education in the light of what had happened, but they were just left to go home instead (via hospital). The default police position of "too much paperwork" is understandable, but culturally we default to this too easily.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2026 ==


Yes, starting with in-car audible warnings when following too close. Similar in-car warnings which increase in volume the more that speed limits are exceeded. Cameras at more junctions which issue fines for crossing on red lights, or for not indicating when making a clear right turn at roundabouts.

And importantly, ring fencing of the fines system so that the fines pay for the enforcement, rather than disappearing into the Government's coffers!

One of the most dangerous situations I’ve ever been driving in was when my car bleeped at me for a speed limit (20 mph) as I was navigating an unfamiliar area with non-existent signage. It was a major distraction at just the time when I needed all my concentration on the road.

As for fines going to fund enforcement, that experiment has been tried. It was accompanied by dodgy statistics and various traps that did little for enforcement but were very good at generating fine income

 

[Shrop]

One of the most dangerous situations I’ve ever been driving in was when my car bleeped at me for a speed limit (20 mph) as I was navigating an unfamiliar area with non-existent signage. It was a major distraction at just the time when I needed all my concentration on the road.

As for fines going to fund enforcement, that experiment has been tried. It was accompanied by dodgy statistics and various traps that did little for enforcement but were very good at generating fine income

Which is all exactly why the systems need developing and improving.

 

[35B]

Which is all exactly why the systems need developing and improving.

Possibly. But the prescribed remedy here was actively dangerous by causing distraction.

 

[Shrop]

Possibly. But the prescribed remedy here was actively dangerous by causing distraction.

Ditto my previous comment. But it must have been quite a warning alarm if it actually caused you to drive dangerously

 

[JGurney]

where pedestrians or cyclists put themselves in places of danger, the moral cause should be apportioned based on the assumption that they and the involved drivers bear responsibility for their own conduct.

It is very unusual that a pedestrian's conduct will expose a driver to danger (unless they do something unconnected with walking along the road, such as throwing bricks at cars). Drivers all too frequently create hazards for pedestrians.

 

[35B]

It is very unusual that a pedestrian's conduct will expose a driver to danger (unless they do something unconnected with walking along the road, such as throwing bricks at cars). Drivers all too frequently create hazards for pedestrians.

Indeed. But those pedestrians and cyclists are also entirely capable of creating the hazards for themselves. Hence my view that the moral cause needs assessment based on conduct.

 

[Bald Rick]

Agree with the deterioration in old age, often an eyesight thing, but also unquestionably a reaction time issue. I am on the brink of having the ‘difficult discussion’ with old father BR, not least as the last time I had him as a passenger I was driving down a country lane at about half the speed I would normally go, and he still told me I was going too fast. (I was overtaken by a sparrow).

The things I see with increasing frequency are:

Urban:
* Driving onto roundabouts / junctions / pedestrian crossings when the exit isn’t clear and then blocking back and delaying others
* Moped drivers, usually food deliveries, in search of the title for smallest clearance to a wing mirror successfully negotiated
* Conversely, Drivers of cars who seem to think their vehicle is at least a metre wider each side than it actually is, and when faced with a narrowish gap refusing to move for a minute or so, then deciding that actually they might be able to make it. Often followed by a bus that shows them how it’s done.
* Minicab drivers indicating to pull out, being let out, then actually doing a 3-7 point turn
* Drivers waiting a few cars back at lights, on their phones, not noticing the lights have changed and the cars in front have moved off, the SCOOT detectors then thinking the queue has cleared, and the lights going back to red, with a good mile of traffic behind the offender (happens every single time I walk past a set of lights near me at busy times)
* Road positioning at junctions, especially turning right and not leaving space (where there is plenty available) for following vehicles to pass on the inside or turn left at T junctions.
* the old chesnut of people doing 38-39mph regardless of speed limit - I have previosuly posted my frustration re the A1081 from St Albans to Harpenden where this is rife.

Strategic Road Network:
* Middle / Outside Lane hoggers. Practically unheard of north of the M62, significantly worse south of the A14.
* People doing 45-55mph on the motorway in clear traffic, forcing HGVs to overtake
* People in average speed camera areas doing 5-10mph under the limit
* similarly, people doing about the limit in a average speed camera areas, then slowing for the cameras

All of these have got progressively worse over the past 20 years. I’m afraid I put it down to one or more of:

1) a complete lack of situational awareness
2) poor spacial awareness
3) increased levels of in car distractions
4) sat nav (people blindly following what it says, rather than observing road conditions)
5) some poor teaching

In my opinion there are drivers on the road who apparently / somehow passed their test against all the odds. I don’t agree with mandatory time based retesting, but do think that retesting should be required for many more traffic offences than is the case now. For example if middle lane hogging was punishable by a retest, a d there was better enforcement of same, you can be pretty sure it would disappear overnight.


One final moan:

The 30mph speed limit (average speed camera enforced) on the M74 south of Lesmahagow last year. Completely unnecessarily restricitve, and arguably more dangerous than a higher limit. It was quicker to get off the motorway and use the old road alongside.


But what has got better?

* In my opinion, the standard of driving by HGV drivers and bus drivers has improved, as has the percentage of those professionals who will thank you when you let them out / anticipate what they want to do

* Similarly the occurrences of one HGV obertaking another at a closing speed of 0.6mph

*Speeding on motorways has been much reduced, obviously speed cameras play a role here, as do black boxes, but also higher traffic levels and active traffic management. Long gone are the days when the outside lane was a procession of German saloons doing 90+ (although the M40 and the M6 north of Lancaster can be a bit like that sometimes, and I guess the A1(M) is north of Wetherby.)

*Jumping lights. I rarely see this outside London.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are over a million people on the roads who passed their test in a foreign country and never had to pass a UK test, which accounts for a lot of the appalling standards in London.

 

[blimmo]

Or are you talking about the large numbers of collisions where excellent drivers are involved in situations that are not of their own making? (in which case the blame should perhaps lie with the less than excellent drivers or other road users).

I am talking about the crashes where multiple admirably cautious road users end up in a bad situation. This is always going to happen when people are travelling at relatively high speed in close proximity to each other and we should be aiming to mitigate the consequences (through road design) rather than attempting to assign blame. This is one area where rail and air safety is much more advanced than road safety.

 

[Krokodil]

People make the roads dangerous, roads don't make roads dangerous.

You underestimate the effect that engineering can have on human behaviour. Engineering Controls are much more effective than Administrative Controls in the hierarchy.

Death by careless driving- a brief moment of inattention and you don't see the cyclist when pulling out of a side street- will see you absolutely clobbered in court.

Not half as clobbered as the cyclist was though.

Indeed. But those pedestrians and cyclists are also entirely capable of creating the hazards for themselves. Hence my view that the moral cause needs assessment based on conduct.

Those pedestrians and cyclists will often be too dead or otherwise incapacitated to defend their own conduct. Hence the benefit of presuming that the car driver is liable unless they can prove otherwise.