Bad traffic enforcement

[Shrop]

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.

I hear what you say, but perhaps I'm not explaining my suggestion well enough so I'll have another go, since I'm awake at this early hour!
If, or rather when, many people are "travelling at relatively high speed in close proximity to each other" then that is exactly the problem that needs addressing. Quite simply, in the name of their own safety, they need greater separation.
It's natural for drivers to break the two second rule because if they don't then others will fill in the gaps and they'll "go backwards" in the queue - to use common parlance.
But it needs to become more widely accepted that things like following too closely, and cutting in front of others when there isn't a safe gap, is wrong.
We've changed our culture with smoking, which was widely accepted even in restaurants only 25 years ago.
On trains it used to be an everyday thing to lean out of windows approaching stations and to have full control over when you wanted to open your door but we've changed all that, in the name of safety.
Driving on motorways used to be largely unregulated except for the occasional police speed traps, but today we accept that 50mph limits will actually increase the capacity of the road and keep traffic moving. All enforced by cameras, and yet many used to argue that there was no way that lowering speeds would increase capacity.
This one is because the human nature of bunching (the "concertina" effect which directly generates the stop-start pattern in queues) has been reduced or eliminated.
Culturally we can change, and with so many avoidable deaths and injuries, then we absolutely should, even if it means adding a few seconds to our journeys.
Have you seen experiments where two people will drive from A to B (eg. 25 miles) in busy conditions, with one driving very calmly, and the other driving much more aggressively, only to find that the aggressive driver saves hardly any time at all?
We just need to be open to change, and make sure that it's done diligently, with appropriate monitoring to refine it until it works properly for everyone's benefit.

 

[35B]

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.

I still fundamentally disagree with the concept of a presumption of guilt - especially if someone’s liberty may be at stake, as it will be if death or serious injury is involved. The principle of innocent until proven guilty remains important.

 

[Harpo]

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

I’d add modern vehicle characteristics to potential causes including:

- Vehicle size. Modern families seem to need cars the size of commercial vehicles (e.g. Ford Ranger trucks). As well as the inability to judge size/space mentioned, they get driven in an intimidating manner and with what appears to be a sense of invincibility.

- Vehicle power. The ability to accelerate and make very rapid manouevres such as undertakes.

Perhaps the retest idea suggested earlier would be better covered by car driver licence bandings by size/power?

 

[Sun Chariot]

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

My real-world.daily examples on posts 4 and 42 (linked here) are all 'human behaviour', on well-lit, accepatably-maintained, decent visibility roads.
Perhaps the carelessness and lawlessness I've described, is more prevalent on England's south coast.

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

Bad traffic enforcement

The question is, why is tailgating not an offence? It's getting ever easier to provide evidence of it happening Well quite. It really ought to be a specific offence and is extremely dangerous. Can you imagine pilots…never re-tested? I have some news for you about private pilot licensing.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[JGurney]

I still fundamentally disagree with the concept of a presumption of guilt - especially if someone’s liberty may be at stake, as it will be if death or serious injury is involved. The principle of innocent until proven guilty remains important.

The requirement that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. the presumption of innocence) only really applies to criminal proceedings.

In civil law there has long been a position which comes very close to a presumption of guilt in cases where a motorist is in collision with a road user of any other group, although it is not precisely that.
The law has long taken the view that anyone who introduces a potential hazard (e.g. an aggressive animal, a drum of a toxic substance or a moving machine) into a public place has a particular responsibility for managing that hazard and ensuring it does not cause harm. It is primarily the responsibility of the person who has introduced the hazard to do this, not that of the general public to go out of their way to avoid the hazard so introduced. For example if someone takes an aggressive dog into a street and it bites someone else, it would be useless for the owner to argue in court that other people should have seen his dog coming and crossed the road to avoid it. He took the animal there and it was his responsibility to manage it.

This general principle applies to cars and other motor vehicles just as it does to any other hazardous things brought into public places. The onus of responsibility lies with the person who introduced the hazard rather than with those exposed to it. This is not literally a presumption of guilt, but it is a presumption that, in the event of a collision with a pedestrian, the greater responsibility is likely to lie with the motorist.

 

[35B]

The requirement that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. the presumption of innocence) only really applies to criminal proceedings.

In civil law there has long been a position which comes very close to a presumption of guilt in cases where a motorist is in collision with a road user of any other group, although it is not precisely that.
The law has long taken the view that anyone who introduces a potential hazard (e.g. an aggressive animal, a drum of a toxic substance or a moving machine) into a public place has a particular responsibility for managing that hazard and ensuring it does not cause harm. It is primarily the responsibility of the person who has introduced the hazard to do this, not that of the general public to go out of their way to avoid the hazard so introduced. For example if someone takes an aggressive dog into a street and it bites someone else, it would be useless for the owner to argue in court that other people should have seen his dog coming and crossed the road to avoid it. He took the animal there and it was his responsibility to manage it.

This general principle applies to cars and other motor vehicles just as it does to any other hazardous things brought into public places. The onus of responsibility lies with the person who introduced the hazard rather than with those exposed to it. This is not literally a presumption of guilt, but it is a presumption that, in the event of a collision with a pedestrian, the greater responsibility is likely to lie with the motorist.

You demonstrate the weakness of your argument.

The analogies you use do not equate to driving on a road. While it may accord to the definition of "public place", if the driver is licensed, their vehicle is compliant, and it is being driven within the applicable speed limit, then the presumptions you propose do not apply. By keeping an open mind as to responsibility, it is possible to fairly determine culpability. The nature of the road will affect the assessment - villages without pavements requires a different approach from drivers and pedestrians to places with footpaths, for example.

If culpability is presumed based on the categorisation of a participant, this risks blinding understanding of cause and undermining the ability to resolve root cause. An example was given upthread of an alley way leading directly onto a foot crossing, where drivers would be unable to see someone until the very last minute (and likewise pedestrians unable to see oncoming traffic). If the view of "assume it's the driver" is taken, the opportunity to mitigate risk by installing a barrier, or making the crossing more visible, may be missed and so undermine the objective of safety.

Similarly, discussion about the interaction of cars and cycles is made toxic and hard to resolve by the determination of many participants to brand one "good" and the other "bad". Much of the contention on roads is driven by the presumption that one or other participant is "right" - and misses the point that in a shared space, mutual co-operation is necessary to get the best result (and, yes, that does apply as between two cars as between car and pedestrian). Step away from that classification and view of "right", and you start to get to a position whereby you can deal with real causes - and make a real difference to safety.

 

[Shrop]

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.

Interesting summary, much of which I agree with, although your very last sentence surprised me.
I would suggest that you could stand at more or less any traffic light junction in most medium to large towns and cities, wait for the green lights to finish, and then see how many skip the lights once they've turned to red.
1, 2 or 3 vehicles will skip the red light almost every time they change to red at busy times.
However, then try standing in a reasonably prominent place at the same junction and wear a high vis yellow jacket. I guarantee that the numbers of transgressions will be absolutely decimated!

 

[The exile]

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).

Driver taking avoiding action…?

 

[JGurney]

The analogies you use do not equate to driving on a road. While it may accord to the definition of "public place",

No "may" about it. Of course a public highway is a public place.

if the driver is licensed, their vehicle is compliant, and it is being driven within the applicable speed limit, then the presumptions you propose do not apply.

I did not propose anything, I simply stated facts. A driver being licensed, the vehicle being compliant and their obeying the speed limit do not create any special exemptions from the general duty to manage a hazard - in fact doing all those things are parts of their fulfilling that duty, not evidence of exemption from it.

In Lunt v Khelifa 2002 Latham LJ (Lord Justice) observed "this court has consistently imposed on drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that the car is potentially a dangerous weapon".

Hale LJ stated in Eagle v Chambers 2003 "It is rare indeed for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver". That is fundamentally because it is rare indeed for a pedestrian to pose more of a hazard than a motor vehicle, and responsibility follows the introduction of hazard.

Tomlinson LJ followed Hale in Sabir v Osei-Kwabena 2015, stating "the observation of Hale LJ was to be explained by the destructive potential of the car driven even at moderate speed. The destructive capacity of the car comes into the evaluation of both causative potency and relative blameworthiness."

Similarly in Parry v Johnson 2022 Ritche J ruled "In law persons driving cars and other mechanically propelled vehicles like tractors owe a duty of care to pedestrians around them who are on the road surface when the car is on the road."

As Silcox (2023) puts it "The law places a much heavier obligation on drivers than it does on pedestrians when using the roads ...... Firstly, the Highway Code establishes a hierarchy of road users which essentially ranks road users from most to least vulnerable. Therefore, the least vulnerable road users therefore have a greater responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they pose to more vulnerable road users. Pedestrians are understandably placed at the top of this hierarchy with car drivers significantly lower. This therefore confirms that car drivers owe a higher duty of care to pedestrians and reflects the fact that those in charge of vehicles can cause the greatest harm to other road users should a collision take place." (https://www.moorebarlow.com/blog/what-duty-does-a-car-driver-owe-to-a-pedestrian/)

 

[The exile]

I’d add modern vehicle characteristics to potential causes including:

- Vehicle size. Modern families seem to need cars the size of commercial vehicles (e.g. Ford Ranger trucks). As well as the inability to judge size/space mentioned, they get driven in an intimidating manner and with what appears to be a sense of invincibility.

- Vehicle power. The ability to accelerate and make very rapid manouevres such as undertakes.

Perhaps the retest idea suggested earlier would be better covered by car driver licence bandings by size/power?

I would add a more general trend - the “the entire world revolves around me and my current desire and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is a monster”.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Meanwhile middle lane hoggers should at the very least get the death penalty, right?

This one does my head in, and indeed outside lane hoggers.
My son lives in Essex which requires regular trips on the M40/M25. The M25 is bar far the worst. Trying to obey the rules is almost impossible with cars pottering along in lane 2 or 3. And you see cars join the motorway and immediately go straight to the outside lane, even when there is hardly any traffic.

 

[blimmo]

I hear what you say, but perhaps I'm not explaining my suggestion well enough so I'll have another go, since I'm awake at this early hour!
If, or rather when, many people are "travelling at relatively high speed in close proximity to each other" then that is exactly the problem that needs addressing. Quite simply, in the name of their own safety, they need greater separation.
It's natural for drivers to break the two second rule because if they don't then others will fill in the gaps and they'll "go backwards" in the queue - to use common parlance.
But it needs to become more widely accepted that things like following too closely, and cutting in front of others when there isn't a safe gap, is wrong.
We've changed our culture with smoking, which was widely accepted even in restaurants only 25 years ago.
On trains it used to be an everyday thing to lean out of windows approaching stations and to have full control over when you wanted to open your door but we've changed all that, in the name of safety.
Driving on motorways used to be largely unregulated except for the occasional police speed traps, but today we accept that 50mph limits will actually increase the capacity of the road and keep traffic moving. All enforced by cameras, and yet many used to argue that there was no way that lowering speeds would increase capacity.
This one is because the human nature of bunching (the "concertina" effect which directly generates the stop-start pattern in queues) has been reduced or eliminated.
Culturally we can change, and with so many avoidable deaths and injuries, then we absolutely should, even if it means adding a few seconds to our journeys.
Have you seen experiments where two people will drive from A to B (eg. 25 miles) in busy conditions, with one driving very calmly, and the other driving much more aggressively, only to find that the aggressive driver saves hardly any time at all?
We just need to be open to change, and make sure that it's done diligently, with appropriate monitoring to refine it until it works properly for everyone's benefit.

By relatively high speed I mean 30 mph and by close proximity, I mean the distance between a pedestrian on the pavement and a vehicle on the roadway.

My point is that collisions are always going to happen and the focus should be on reducing the consequences by keeping motor traffic (except very low speed) away from squishy humans without the protection of crumple zones. I'm not saying that irresponsible driving is not dangerous but more that fixing it wouldn't stop traffic deaths and I think the current approach is fundamentally flawed in its focus on personal responsibility (though I agree it is also ineffective at that due to poor enforcement).

 

[edwin_m]

My point is that collisions are always going to happen and the focus should be on reducing the consequences by keeping motor traffic (except very low speed) away from squishy humans without the protection of crumple zones. I'm not saying that irresponsible driving is not dangerous but more that fixing it wouldn't stop traffic deaths and I think the current approach is fundamentally flawed in its focus on personal responsibility (though I agree it is also ineffective at that due to poor enforcement).

Your first sentence contradicts itself. Separation of vehicles from pedestrians is a measure to reduce the likelihood of collision, not the severity.

Separation can also be counter-productive, as drivers who perceive they have exclusive use of the roadspace may drive more aggressively than if they are expecting to share it. It also leads to the 1960s thinking where pedestrians and cyclists are forced into indirect and/or intimidating subways and footbridges.

 

[JGurney]

Driver taking avoiding action…?

I am not aware of any cases where a driver has attempted to sue a pedestrian arguing that the pedestrian's conduct amounted to a hazard through causing them to take an avoiding action which then led to an accident, so (unless you can cite any) we can only speculate about what might happen.

I suspect that much would depend on whether the avoiding action was in itself well-conducted, and upon whether it had arisen due to the driver failing to notice the pedestrian earlier or to the pedestrian doing some unforeseeable action, or to the pedestrian doing something inherently imprudent such as suddenly leaping out from concealment.

 

[blimmo]

Your first sentence contradicts itself. Separation of vehicles from pedestrians is a measure to reduce the likelihood of collision, not the severity.

Separation can also be counter-productive, as drivers who perceive they have exclusive use of the roadspace may drive more aggressively than if they are expecting to share it. It also leads to the 1960s thinking where pedestrians and cyclists are forced into indirect and/or intimidating subways and footbridges.

Yes I also want reductions in likelihood too I suppose I should've mentioned that.

I think you have misunderstood me. By "away" I meant "on different roads".

Yes I am aware that separation is often counterproductive when it lets cars feel safe driving quickly in places where they still intimidate pedestrians, although this can be mitigated with narrow lanes and tight corners. I would like the roads I need to walk down to not involve cars travelling above 20 mph (to reduce severity) and not have through traffic (to reduce likelihood).

 

[The exile]

I am not aware of any cases where a driver has attempted to sue a pedestrian arguing that the pedestrian's conduct amounted to a hazard through causing them to take an avoiding action which then led to an accident, so (unless you can cite any) we can only speculate about what might happen.

I suspect that much would depend on whether the avoiding action was in itself well-conducted, and upon whether it had arisen due to the driver failing to notice the pedestrian earlier or to the pedestrian doing some unforeseeable action, or to the pedestrian doing something inherently imprudent such as suddenly leaping out from concealment.

I have twice (ironically at almost the exact same spot) witnessed accidents where drivers have had to take avoiding action when a pedestrian has emerged (apparently without looking) between two parked vans. One did an emergency stop and was rear-ended; the other swerved and clipped mirrors with a vehicle going the other way. Minor accidents compared with the consequences of doing nothing - but both ultimately caused by a pedestrian not exercising due caution (and in the first instance exacerbated by the following driver).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Apr 2026 ==

Meanwhile middle lane hoggers should at the very least get the death penalty, right?

The one situation where I have a degree of sympathy is on M-Ways with no hard-shoulder when traffic is not particularly heavy. No hard-shoulder means you only have one direction of escape in an emergency and that’s into a lane of faster-moving traffic.

 

[35B]

No "may" about it. Of course a public highway is a public place.

I did not propose anything, I simply stated facts. A driver being licensed, the vehicle being compliant and their obeying the speed limit do not create any special exemptions from the general duty to manage a hazard - in fact doing all those things are parts of their fulfilling that duty, not evidence of exemption from it.

In Lunt v Khelifa 2002 Latham LJ (Lord Justice) observed "this court has consistently imposed on drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that the car is potentially a dangerous weapon".

Hale LJ stated in Eagle v Chambers 2003 "It is rare indeed for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a driver". That is fundamentally because it is rare indeed for a pedestrian to pose more of a hazard than a motor vehicle, and responsibility follows the introduction of hazard.

Tomlinson LJ followed Hale in Sabir v Osei-Kwabena 2015, stating "the observation of Hale LJ was to be explained by the destructive potential of the car driven even at moderate speed. The destructive capacity of the car comes into the evaluation of both causative potency and relative blameworthiness."

Similarly in Parry v Johnson 2022 Ritche J ruled "In law persons driving cars and other mechanically propelled vehicles like tractors owe a duty of care to pedestrians around them who are on the road surface when the car is on the road."

As Silcox (2023) puts it "The law places a much heavier obligation on drivers than it does on pedestrians when using the roads ...... Firstly, the Highway Code establishes a hierarchy of road users which essentially ranks road users from most to least vulnerable. Therefore, the least vulnerable road users therefore have a greater responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they pose to more vulnerable road users. Pedestrians are understandably placed at the top of this hierarchy with car drivers significantly lower. This therefore confirms that car drivers owe a higher duty of care to pedestrians and reflects the fact that those in charge of vehicles can cause the greatest harm to other road users should a collision take place." (https://www.moorebarlow.com/blog/what-duty-does-a-car-driver-owe-to-a-pedestrian/)

I accept the concept of the hierarchy of road users, and the duty of care as a driver. My issue is the extension of that into a generalised presumption of fault on the part of the driver unless otherwise refuted.

There are two different concepts at work. The first is that of responsibility, the second of fault. It is my responsibility to drive with due care and attention, in accordance with the applicable restrictions on the road. If an incident happens, the assessment of fault needs to consider whether my driving was compatible with that responsibility. Similarly, the harm done need not bear any relation to culpability - the classic case being the example of a child running out in front of a car so close that the driver cannot stop. That is why any assessment of cause must IMHO start from a neutral position, without prior assumptions about the culpability of any of the participants.

Specifically with regard to the definition of the road as a public place, my point is that where a road is clearly defined into separate zones for vehicles and pedestrians, as for example with the provision of pavements and controlled crossings, there are clear responsibilities on all involved to manage their conduct safely. It is notable that the examples cited here are often about situations in which that boundary is breached, as for example with pedestrians stepping into the roadway. That is accepted in what you quote from Parry v Johnson, and is not accounted for in your explanation of LJ Hale's statement in Eagle v Chambers - the greater harm may well be to the individual who is also more culpable.

Independently of this, there are then a host of other issues surrounding the design and implementation of roads, especially in urban areas, due to the impact of the separation that I've described. They go well beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Krokodil]

My real-world.daily examples on posts 4 and 42 (linked here) are all 'human behaviour', on well-lit, accepatably-maintained, decent visibility roads.

Most deaths don't occur on motorways. Engineering controls can include kerb bump-outs to provide pedestrians with better visibility, narrowing lanes to make a slower speed feel more appropriate for the road, raising the entrance of side roads as a reminder to give way to pedestrians etc.

 

[JGurney]

I have twice (ironically at almost the exact same spot) witnessed accidents where drivers have had to take avoiding action when a pedestrian has emerged (apparently without looking) between two parked vans. One did an emergency stop and was rear-ended;

Liability would lie with the following driver: the damage arose from their being too close behind. The reason why the car in front stopped would be irrelevant.

the other swerved and clipped mirrors with a vehicle going the other way.

The pedestrian might well be liable in that sort of case, unless there was a particular reason why the driver should have been more aware of the likelihood of that event happening in that particular location e.g. in Parker v McLaren 2021 a pedestrian stepped into the path of a taxi in the centre of York and was injured. Liability was assessed at 50% to each party. The pedestrian had been careless, but so had the taxi driver in that he knew from experience that in that particular place on Saturday nights it was common for pedestrians to carelessly step into the carriageway and he had failed to take suitable precautions.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would suggest that you could stand at more or less any traffic light junction in most medium to large towns and cities, wait for the green lights to finish, and then see how many skip the lights once they've turned to red.
1, 2 or 3 vehicles will skip the red light almost every time they change to red at busy times.

Experiences differ. As I said, I rarely see lights jumped, and that includes in medium to large towns and cities. And that inclides innShropshire. It certainly is not almost every time they turn red.

 

[The exile]

Liability would lie with the following driver: the damage arose from their being too close behind. The reason why the car in front stopped would be irrelevant.

Liability maybe - but it was still the unconsidered action of the pedestrian that led to the accident.

 

[bramling]

I would add a more general trend - the “the entire world revolves around me and my current desire and anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is a monster”.

… which seems to have been exacerbated since Covid. The standard of driving in my town has become notably more awful (it wasn’t great before) since 2020. No coincidence there’s a disproportionately high number of work from homes or people who have taken early retirement, some of these seem to have lost all sense of how to conduct themselves in public settings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Apr 2026 ==

Experiences differ. As I said, I rarely see lights jumped, and that includes in medium to large towns and cities. And that inclides innShropshire. It certainly is not almost every time they turn red.

I’d agree with this. Certainly see the occasional vehicle cutting a bit fine, but blatant disregard of red lights is quite rare, even in London it isn’t a massive thing (cyclists excepted!).

One exception which I do see depressingly often is large vehicles ploughing through well after the red, and I make no apology for further noting that this is disproportionately often foreign-plated HGVs. At South Mimms in particular I find it’s necessary to be *very* careful when your own lights turn green. This is something which should really be clamped down on hard, especially as large vehicles have a high chance of causing significant damage / injury in the event of a collision. It’s also reasonable to speculate that the self-same HGVs are likely to be ones who tailgate cars through roadworks, etc.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Most deaths don't occur on motorways. Engineering controls can include kerb bump-outs to provide pedestrians with better visibility, narrowing lanes to make a slower speed feel more appropriate for the road, raising the entrance of side roads as a reminder to give way to pedestrians etc.

I fully agree and many of my examples occur on urban roads.
My lane-switching example includes urban roads too - many times of last-minute filter-changing.- colliding with / narrowly avoiding traffic already occupying the other filter-lane.
The teens on e-bikes terrorising motorists, pedestrians, dog-walkers: all urban.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

The only people who don't have to pass a UK driving test are people who passed their test in an equivalent jurisidiction and people who have been in the UK less than 12 months.

Driving standards in London have very little to do with nationality- not unless all those white vans with INGURLUND and West Ham or Millwall stickers in the back window are secretly being driven by foreigners straight off the boat.

Driving standards in London are simply a consequence of too many people trying to drive in too little road space. If you don't get your elbows out in London then you'll never get anywhere and this just leads to a doom loop of increasingly aggressive and selfish driving.

The things I see with increasing frequency

I agree with all of these, and would like to add my personal pet peeve: people turning right into a road and cutting the corner. I don't know if that's a Manx speciality or not but I've nearly lost my driver's side headlight and wing a couple of times to people who think the white lines at junctions are just a decorative feature.

I don't think the shape and size of modern vehicles is helping with spatial awareness though. They're wider than they ever were and in many cars its harder to see from the driver's seat exactly where the offside ends. I can only presume that this is why so many middle aged women in dealer white Range Rover Evoques (I don't mean to pick on middle aged women, I do mean to pick on Range Rover Evoque drivers) think that they're driving something the size of a Challenger II tank.

One final thing: having watched someone repeatedly fail to parallel park a Toyota Yaris outside my office this lunchtime, I retract my opinion that 99% of people would pass a second driving test

 

[JGurney]

I accept the concept of the hierarchy of road users, and the duty of care as a driver. My issue is the extension of that into a generalised presumption of fault on the part of the driver unless otherwise refuted.

There are two different concepts at work. The first is that of responsibility, the second of fault. It is my responsibility to drive with due care and attention,

Quite so . As I wrote above "This is not literally a presumption of guilt [or fault], but it is a presumption that, in the event of a collision with a pedestrian, the greater responsibility is likely to lie with the motorist".

Specifically with regard to the definition of the road as a public place, my point is that where a road is clearly defined into separate zones for vehicles and pedestrians,

Not literally, although it can appear that way de facto. Generally the separation, where it arises, is into a footway and a carriageway (or occasionally a shared use pedestrian/cycle path, or a cycle path or very rarely an equestrian path in addition to a footway, but most commonly a footway and a carriageway). Strictly what has been done there is that part of the highway has indeed been reserved for pedestrians, but the remainder is not reserved for vehicles. Equestrians are not allowed to ride their horses on footways, and herders are supposed to take what precautions they reasonably can to keep their livestock off footways: both should keep to the carriageway. Technically some pedestrians, those carrying ladders and similar items or rolling wheels, barrows, etc, in the London Metropolitan Police District, are not allowed on footways but must walk in the carriageway.

Footways came about to allow those in delicate footwear to avoid the mud, dung, etc, found in the rest of the road, not as the only part of the road pedestrians were supposed to use. The early footways were installed by town councils dominated by shopkeepers to encourage the well-shod and well-monied to visit shops more often, long before the first motor-car appeared.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Back in the day senior citizen drivers would opt for something like a Honda Jazz, but the current 'boomer' cohort opt for ridiculous SUVs. They can't steer them, reverse them, park them or even see out of them (with the enormous 'A' pillars). They are a particular menace on the narrow lanes of Devon and Cornwall refusing (or unable) to reverse them even when a passing place is nearer to them. They then have the gall to moan about the state of the roads - SUVs churn up the verges and the damage to the road surface rises roughly at 4X the increase in weight. Grrr!

I am, of course, a senior citizen 'boomer' - but a cyclist!

 

[The exile]

My lane-switching example includes urban roads too - many times of last-minute filter-changing.-

Not excusing the last minute lane changing, but this is an area where road signage / lane marking is often no longer fit for purpose. On road markings are far too close to the junction /roundabout in today’s heavy traffic and roadside signage too often obscured by vegetation / high vehicles.

 

[35B]

One exception which I do see depressingly often is large vehicles ploughing through well after the red, and I make no apology for further noting that this is disproportionately often foreign-plated HGVs. At South Mimms in particular I find it’s necessary to be *very* careful when your own lights turn green. This is something which should really be clamped down on hard, especially as large vehicles have a high chance of causing significant damage / injury in the event of a collision. It’s also reasonable to speculate that the self-same HGVs are likely to be ones who tailgate cars through roadworks, etc.

Light charging is a common fault at one of the junctions near me - and interestingly, almost entirely limited to that one junction. It's an equal opportunity sport, and there's no obvious reason why it should be.

I agree with all of these, and would like to add my personal pet peeve: people turning right into a road and cutting the corner. I don't know if that's a Manx speciality or not but I've nearly lost my driver's side headlight and wing a couple of times to people who think the white lines at junctions are just a decorative feature.

Not just Manx - just people who've learned about racing lines but not when to use them.

I don't think the shape and size of modern vehicles is helping with spatial awareness though. They're wider than they ever were and in many cars its harder to see from the driver's seat exactly where the offside ends. I can only presume that this is why so many middle aged women in dealer white Range Rover Evoques (I don't mean to pick on middle aged women, I do mean to pick on Range Rover Evoque drivers) think that they're driving something the size of a Challenger II tank.

The X-Trail I drive is no smaller, and the shape doesn't help - but the sensors do. Some people just don't know how wide their backsides are.

Back in the day senior citizen drivers would opt for something like a Honda Jazz, but the current 'boomer' cohort opt for ridiculous SUVs. They can't steer them, reverse them, park them or even see out of them (with the enormous 'A' pillars). They are a particular menace on the narrow lanes of Devon and Cornwall refusing (or unable) to reverse them even when a passing place is nearer to them. They then have the gall to moan about the state of the roads - SUVs churn up the verges and the damage to the road surface rises roughly at 4X the increase in weight.

See above re my current choice of car (we also have a Jazz as a runaround). If people can't drive their vehicles, it's not about size but capability - see also their refusal to reverse in narrow lanes (met that when in Devon & Cornwall).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Apr 2026 ==

Quite so . As I wrote above "This is not literally a presumption of guilt [or fault], but it is a presumption that, in the event of a collision with a pedestrian, the greater responsibility is likely to lie with the motorist".

The issue is the existence of a presumption - when enquiring into cause, the enquiry needs to start on a neutral basis.

Not literally, although it can appear that way de facto. Generally the separation, where it arises, is into a footway and a carriageway (or occasionally a shared use pedestrian/cycle path, or a cycle path or very rarely an equestrian path in addition to a footway, but most commonly a footway and a carriageway). Strictly what has been done there is that part of the highway has indeed been reserved for pedestrians, but the remainder is not reserved for vehicles. Equestrians are not allowed to ride their horses on footways, and herders are supposed to take what precautions they reasonably can to keep their livestock off footways: both should keep to the carriageway. Technically some pedestrians, those carrying ladders and similar items or rolling wheels, barrows, etc, in the London Metropolitan Police District, are not allowed on footways but must walk in the carriageway.

Footways came about to allow those in delicate footwear to avoid the mud, dung, etc, found in the rest of the road, not as the only part of the road pedestrians were supposed to use. The early footways were installed by town councils dominated by shopkeepers to encourage the well-shod and well-monied to visit shops more often, long before the first motor-car appeared.

I go with de facto, because the engineering all supports a concept of different zones in the 21st century world we live in, not the 18th century world where modern streets were first built. The red flag was abolished over a century ago, and the reality is that cars are driven at a speed that will cause harm to someone who walks in front of one. If I were genuinely to drive at a speed where if anyone stepped off the pavement I could be sure of stopping, I could not drive much over walking speed in built up areas.

That is distinct from the tolerance that I must extend to other users of the carriageway when I encounter them, and the obligation as a driver that I have to behave safely in those circumstances. There are times, however, when I do feel that a little mutual respect would go a long way - pedestrians walking with their backs to traffic on country roads, or groups of cyclists making no effort to create some space to allow a following car to overtake being particular frustrations of mine.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Specifically with regard to the definition of the road as a public place, my point is that where a road is clearly defined into separate zones for vehicles and pedestrians, as for example with the provision of pavements and controlled crossings, there are clear responsibilities on all involved to manage their conduct safely.

In the UK there is no such definition of separate zones, or at least not in general.

Unless it is designated as a motorway or a special road, a pedestrian (or a cyclist or an equestrian) is as entitled to walk in the middle of the carriageway as a car driver is to drive in the middle of the carriageway. Motor vehicles are barred from the footway, but the same restriction doesn't apply in reverse.

It is something a lot of car drivers forget. Car drivers also routinely forget that pedestrians have right of way when the car driver is turning into a side road.

 

[Krokodil]

The issue is the existence of a presumption - when enquiring into cause, the enquiry needs to start on a neutral basis.

Is that actually possible when the victim is dead or otherwise cannot speak in account of their own actions? In that situation the driver just claims "I didn't see him, he came out of nowhere..." and who's going to contradict them?

If I were genuinely to drive at a speed where if anyone stepped off the pavement I could be sure of stopping, I could not drive much over walking speed in built up areas.

20mph is perfectly adequate for preventing most serious injuries in places where people are likely to be crossing roads without signal protection. You should be adjusting your speed to reflect the conditions. If you've got a clear view then there's no reason not to drive at the speed limit. If your vision is obstructed by parked cars then you should be slowing down to a crawl.