Bad traffic enforcement

[Krokodil]

Virtually all - but then that is as much a failure of the authorities to ensure that the change to the regulations is adequately communicated. Where are the public information films or modern equivalent?

How do you check understanding? You test. On the railway we've had to make the point many times that management can't just email out a brief (the email likely to get buried under all of the other drivel) and expect whatever crazy new ticketing wheeze they've come up with to be understood. Even if you get people to sign to say that they've received it there's no guarantee that they've understood it. After a lot of campaigning we got them to reinstate classroom sessions with instructors.

Incidentally, as someone who learnt to drive in a jurisdiction where that was already the case, it is good practice, but a silly and dangerous rule.

It ought to be backed up by changing the road construction manuals to have continuous footpaths across side streets, so that cars entering or exiting are forced to slow down for the ramp.

 

[35B]

How would bad drivers losing their licences introduce road hazard?

As I've posted earlier, if a driver has just lost their license and is driving home, their focus is likely to be very much reduced. But if they can't drive home after a failure, how are they supposed to get their car home?

 

[The exile]

It ought to be backed up by changing the road construction manuals to have continuous footpaths across side streets, so that cars entering or exiting are forced to slow down for the ramp.

That didn't seem to be the issue - it's the rear-ending of cars which suddenly have to slow down for pedestrians crossing just out of sight (yes - I know that's the fault of the second car) and the additional difficulties caused to drivers trying to pull out to turn right, observe relatively fast-moving traffic on the main road and pedestrians who might suddenly step out as they have right of way. It's probably fine at the moment, precisely because most pedestrians are still wary and don't assume cars will stop. It should have been accompanied by a requirement for pedestrians to cross one car length back from the junction (ie, giving enough time for a car turning in to see them and enabling the first car turning out to concentrate on the traffic on the main road. It also doesn't work well with mini-roundabout junctions - which I suspect don't exist in the various jurisdictions our fact-finders visited.

 

[edwin_m]

It should have been accompanied by a requirement for pedestrians to cross one car length back from the junction (ie, giving enough time for a car turning in to see them and enabling the first car turning out to concentrate on the traffic on the main road.

That makes them less visible to drivers turning left into the side road.

 

[The exile]

That makes them less visible to drivers turning left into the side road.

That is true, it does, but it also gives a full length in which to react and stop, as opposed to a few feet if the view of the corner is blocked by street furniture, other pedestrians etc. It also gives the less than observant pedestrian more time to spot the car ("I had right of way" is about the right length for an inscription on a headstone, but doesn't help you much!)

 

[Krokodil]

That didn't seem to be the issue - it's the rear-ending of cars which suddenly have to slow down for pedestrians crossing just out of sight

Why would they be rear-ended? You're driving down the main road, you want to take a turning into a side street. You check your mirror, turn on your indicators (unless driving a BMW) reduce your speed, position yourself in the lane and look for hazards. There's no reason (beyond a child actually running out into the main road) for you to have to slam on your brakes because you should already have reduced your speed when approaching the junction.

(yes - I know that's the fault of the second car)

And the only consequence is damage to the cars anyway. I can't get worked up about that.

 

[The exile]

Why would they be rear-ended? You're driving down the main road, you want to take a turning into a side street. You check your mirror, turn on your indicators (unless driving a BMW) reduce your speed, position yourself in the lane and look for hazards. There's no reason (beyond a child actually running out into the main road) for you to have to slam on your brakes because you should already have reduced your speed when approaching the junction.

I’m only reporting viewed experience (admittedly from the home country of the BMW!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2026 ==

And the only consequence is damage to the cars anyway. I can't get worked up about that.

And delay and disruption to traffic.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why would they be rear-ended? You're driving down the main road, you want to take a turning into a side street. You check your mirror, turn on your indicators (unless driving a BMW) reduce your speed, position yourself in the lane and look for hazards. There's no reason (beyond a child actually running out into the main road) for you to have to slam on your brakes because you should already have reduced your speed when approaching the junction.

These types of accidents have become anecdotally more common precisely because too few people expect the car in front to stop when making a turn or exiting a roundabout to lawfully give way to pedestrians.

And the only consequence is damage to the cars anyway. I can't get worked up about that.

No, you could injure a driver or passenger with a shunt, or worse, a pedestrian (especially exiting a roundabout which some are wont to do at 30-40mph)

In any case, in my experience most pedestrians do not take the priority and seem surprised when I beckon them across. It's been well-intentioned because it rightly tries to give more road priority to pedestrians, but I don't think it's been a well briefed change; that makes pedestrian and driver behaviour at junctions less predictable which helps no road user at all.

 

[Krokodil]

I’m only reporting viewed experience (admittedly from the home country of the BMW!)

And Audi.

So you've got a BMW which wasn't indicating being rear-ended by an Audi which was tailgating?

These types of accidents have become anecdotally more common precisely because too few people expect the car in front to stop when making a turn or exiting a roundabout to lawfully give way to pedestrians.

I've got a radical idea to solve this:

Motorists should pay attention to the road ahead and anticipate hazards.

There's a revolutionary thought. Perhaps the hazard perception test should include this specific scenario where a car is indicating to turn but a pedestrian has approached the kerb. Come to think of it, the hazard perception test is perhaps what we should be making people redo.

No, you could injure a driver or passenger with a shunt, or worse, a pedestrian (especially exiting a roundabout which some are wont to do at 30-40mph)

I'm beginning to think that we should have unmarked police patrols brake-checking all these idiots we apparently let loose on our roads.

 

[Shrop]

To all you doubters about repeat driving tests, think about the next time you need a hospital operation.
Your surgeon passed his exams 30 years ago and has had no-one re-testing him since then. You've heard many reports casting doubt on his capabilities, but you're due for him to perform an operation on you in a few days time.
So tell me, do you take the view that you're completely relaxed about how he will operate on you, after all he's been performing operations for 30 years so therefore he must be good after all that experience?

 

[35B]

To all you doubters about repeat driving tests, think about the next time you need a hospital operation.
Your surgeon passed his exams 30 years ago and has had no-one re-testing him since then. You've heard many reports casting doubt on his capabilities, but you're due for him to perform an operation on you in a few days time.
So tell me, do you take the view that you're completely relaxed about how he will operate on you, after all he's been performing operations for 30 years so therefore he must be good after all that experience?

But that surgeon isn’t subject to periodic high stakes tests with nothing in the middle, but has to undergo a programme of continuously professional development. The two are simply not comparable.

 

[Shrop]

But that surgeon isn’t subject to periodic high stakes tests with nothing in the middle, but has to undergo a programme of continuously professional development. The two are simply not comparable.

So would you suggest mandatory CPD for drivers rather than re-tests? After all we are talking of a qualification which leads to many deaths and hundreds of serious injuries every week.
I'm being serious, this discussion isn't about who is right and wrong, it's about finding a useful way forward.
How would you go about implementing a programme of CPD for drivers?

 

[Sun Chariot]

Stepping slightly OT, the biggest "eye opener" - and, therefore, positive influence on my driving (I passed in 1988, in a fairly provincial rural area) - was when I did the Direct Access for my motorbike licence in 2001, in central London.

Suddenly, a sound-insulated safe metal cage of car, removed and became the highly vulnerable (but higher-seated + longer field-of-view) motorbike. The final 3 days (including my test-day) on a 600cc made me realise just how bad (awareness, attitude, ability) the driving standards of UK's motor licence-holders can be.
It "reset" my hazard perception / planning with my own car-driving; and it has remained with me ever since.

I don't suggest everyone does a motorbike course but there's something about getting far more aware of one's and others' actions and the consequence on a squishy human.

 

[The exile]

Stepping slightly OT, the biggest "eye opener" - and, therefore, positive influence on my driving (I passed in 1988, in a fairly provincial rural area) - was when I did the Direct Access for my motorbike licence in 2001, in central London.

Suddenly, a sound-insulated safe metal cage of car, removed and became the highly vulnerable (but higher-seated + longer field-of-view) motorbike. The final 3 days (including my test-day) on a 600cc made me realise just how bad (awareness, attitude, ability) the driving standards of UK's motor licence-holders can be.
It "reset" my hazard perception / planning with my own car-driving: and has remained with me ever since.

I don't suggest everyone does a motorbike course but there's something about getting far.more aware of one's and others' actions and the consequence on a squishy.human.

Interesting thought - how has the reduction on on-road cycling as a means of transport reduced drivers’ awareness of others (I mean because they weren’t /aren’t still cyclists).

 

[35B]

So would you suggest mandatory CPD for drivers rather than re-tests? After all we are talking of a qualification which leads to many deaths and hundreds of serious injuries every week.
I'm being serious, this discussion isn't about who is right and wrong, it's about finding a useful way forward.
How would you go about implementing a programme of CPD for drivers?

The honest answer is that I don't know, and CPD systems are not without flaws. A basic model would require a certain level of participation over a given time period - equivalent to CPD points in a professional setting. That could be examined as part of the online training, with required passmarks and escalations for failures. But that would only deal with theory, not driving, and is a model that doesn't work equally well (even presuming identical access) for all.

 

[AlterEgo]

The only sort of ongoing training which would probably be worthwhile is to re-pass the theory test every 5 years or so.

I still think some perspective is needed. The UK has a generally good standard of driving. I have been driving for about 20 years now and covered maybe 300,000 miles. In that time I can think of maybe three or four occasions where a driver could have caused me very serious harm had it not been for my alertness or fortune. And I have had one minor 5mph bump which was my fault. I have had one accident where another driver wrote off my car by rear ending me, but that was caused partly by the design of the road which induced a number of hazards following a light-controlled junction which was designed to "must get away quick off the mark".

Most bad driving is inconsiderate and annoying and can be managed by other road users' patience and forebearance and is not a problem which needs enormous change. What does need to happen is a change in behaviour among the 10% or so of drivers who drive recklessly or irresponsibly, and I don't think taking tests is of huge assistance.

Even hazard perception is only partially useful. In my view it's a vigilance test, where you click the button when you see a side road or a child walking near the back of a car. This only partly replicates the real world, where you are sitting physically in the car, feeling its performance and your envelope of risk changes substantially. A car waiting patiently at a roundabout as you go around it isn't a hazard in the perception test, but in the real world you will pick up on things you "don't like" from pattern recognition, subconsciously noting that perhaps you haven't seen the driver look at your car and that perhaps you haven't been seen (and will ease off the accelerator). Everyone gets that sixth sense feeling about vehicles "he looks lost and might stop suddenly" "this guy is a fool, I guarantee he will try to overtake on that bend". Those skills come from regular driving and not testing or competence training, and are skills which will keep you safe.

Britain needs better enforcement of traffic violations and more police on the roads, certainly. But I don't get the fixation on testing people; a person who has just passed their test is a risk and a liability on the roads because the test covers the minimum level of competence to operate a car.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Interesting thought - how has the reduction on on-road cycling as a means of transport reduced drivers’ awareness of others (I mean because they weren’t /aren’t still cyclists).

I don't think the correlation lies with cycling.
I perceive* it lies with those car / van drivers who have never experienced vulnerability of being on two-wheeled motorised transport in "four-wheeled" traffic flows and speeds.

* I recall a media article (newspaper, iirc, it was twenty+ years ago), after a fatal traffic accident. A police representative was quoted, expressing the view about people who, upon climbing into their safety-laden car or van, becoming desensitised from traffic hazards (they upon others and others upon them), due to the metal cage protecting them.

 

[The exile]

I don't think the correlation lies with cycling.
I perceive* it lies with those car / van drivers who have never experienced vulnerability of being on two-wheeled motorised transport in "four-wheeled" traffic flows and speeds.

* I recall a media article (newspaper, iirc, it was twenty+ years ago), after a fatal traffic axcident. A police representative was quoted, expressing the view about people who, upon climbing into their safety-laden car or van, becoming desensitised from traffic hazards (they upon others and others upon them), due to the metal cage protecting them.

Yes - but time was when a very high percentage of new drivers would have graduated from cycling “on road” and would thus have that experience ingrained. I doubt that is now the case.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Yes - but time was when a very high percentage of new drivers would have graduated from cycling “on road” and would thus have that experience ingrained. I doubt that is now the case.

Oh I absolutely agree with you; and compounded by - based on local accidents and air ambulace attendances - many e-scooter riders' truly shocking levels of spacial- and hazard-awareness.

 

[35B]

The only sort of ongoing training which would probably be worthwhile is to re-pass the theory test every 5 years or so.

I still think some perspective is needed. The UK has a generally good standard of driving. I have been driving for about 20 years now and covered maybe 300,000 miles. In that time I can think of maybe three or four occasions where a driver could have caused me very serious harm had it not been for my alertness or fortune. And I have had one minor 5mph bump which was my fault. I have had one accident where another driver wrote off my car by rear ending me, but that was caused partly by the design of the road which induced a number of hazards following a light-controlled junction which was designed to "must get away quick off the mark".

Most bad driving is inconsiderate and annoying and can be managed by other road users' patience and forebearance and is not a problem which needs enormous change. What does need to happen is a change in behaviour among the 10% or so of drivers who drive recklessly or irresponsibly, and I don't think taking tests is of huge assistance.

Even hazard perception is only partially useful. In my view it's a vigilance test, where you click the button when you see a side road or a child walking near the back of a car. This only partly replicates the real world, where you are sitting physically in the car, feeling its performance and your envelope of risk changes substantially. A car waiting patiently at a roundabout as you go around it isn't a hazard in the perception test, but in the real world you will pick up on things you "don't like" from pattern recognition, subconsciously noting that perhaps you haven't seen the driver look at your car and that perhaps you haven't been seen (and will ease off the accelerator). Everyone gets that sixth sense feeling about vehicles "he looks lost and might stop suddenly" "this guy is a fool, I guarantee he will try to overtake on that bend". Those skills come from regular driving and not testing or competence training, and are skills which will keep you safe.

Britain needs better enforcement of traffic violations and more police on the roads, certainly. But I don't get the fixation on testing people; a person who has just passed their test is a risk and a liability on the roads because the test covers the minimum level of competence to operate a car.

A build on that. A former acquaintance was notorious for the dents on her car, and people always took care not to be driven by her. The issue with her driving was that she had no concept of looking any distance ahead, so was always surprised when traffic conditions changed.

 

[The exile]

A build on that. A former acquaintance was notorious for the dents on her car, and people always took care not to be driven by her. The issue with her driving was that she had no concept of looking any distance ahead, so was always surprised when traffic conditions changed.

Reminds me of a former acquaintance who had a worrying habit of taking directions literally. I still get the shudders as I approach Kingston Bagpuize when I remember her response to “straight on at the roundabout”. She was completely sober at the time!

 

[sprunt]

Motorists should pay attention to the road ahead and anticipate hazards.

Will the war on the motorist never end?

I don't think the correlation lies with cycling.
I perceive* it lies with those car / van drivers who have never experienced vulnerability of being on two-wheeled motorised transport in "four-wheeled" traffic flows and speeds.

* I recall a media article (newspaper, iirc, it was twenty+ years ago), after a fatal traffic accident. A police representative was quoted, expressing the view about people who, upon climbing into their safety-laden car or van, becoming desensitised from traffic hazards (they upon others and others upon them), due to the metal cage protecting them.

This strikes me as similar to the way that the ridiculous ballooning of car sizes is defended as being safer for the car's occupants in the event of a collision, apparently without the slightest concern for the increased impact on whatever it is the car has collided with.

 

[Shrop]

Will the war on the motorist never end?


This strikes me as similar to the way that the ridiculous ballooning of car sizes is defended as being safer for the car's occupants in the event of a collision, apparently without the slightest concern for the increased impact on whatever it is the car has collided with.

Your second comment I completely agree with.
Your first comment I don't - I've never known of a genuine war on the motorist, it's only a scaremongering story put out by petrol headed journalists. Unless you know different?

 

[bramling]

Interesting thought - how has the reduction on on-road cycling as a means of transport reduced drivers’ awareness of others (I mean because they weren’t /aren’t still cyclists).

Definitely cycling (either pedal or motor) will improve hazard perception for many people, though judging by what I see in London I’m not sure this applies to quite everyone!

Some people are just poor with their spatial awareness though, and this likely applies in all facets of their lives. Add in a bit of ego, over-confidence and in some cases plain stupidity, and we arrive at some of the abominations we see on the road.

It’s the same in rowing. Put someone in a single boat which is barely 30cm wide and one wrong move will have it straight over, and it does focus the mind somewhat!

 

[Llanigraham]

To all you doubters about repeat driving tests, think about the next time you need a hospital operation.
Your surgeon passed his exams 30 years ago and has had no-one re-testing him since then. You've heard many reports casting doubt on his capabilities, but you're due for him to perform an operation on you in a few days time.
So tell me, do you take the view that you're completely relaxed about how he will operate on you, after all he's been performing operations for 30 years so therefore he must be good after all that experience?

I'm sorry but that comparison is invalid!

How would you go about implementing a programme of CPD for drivers?

You keep suggesting this sort of thing, but you never provide an answer for anyone to debate. Please give us your method of this retesting so that we have something to work with.

 

[sprunt]

Your second comment I completely agree with.
Your first comment I don't - I've never known of a genuine war on the motorist, it's only a scaremongering story put out by petrol headed journalists. Unless you know different?

Did you read what the first part was in response to? I hoped it would be obvious I was ridiculing the concept of a war on the motorist by invoking it in response to such a reasonable suggestion!

 

[Shrop]

Did you read what the first part was in response to? I hoped it would be obvious I was ridiculing the concept of a war on the motorist by invoking it in response to such a reasonable suggestion!

Ah I see, in that case I agree with your points entirely

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Apr 2026 ==

I'm sorry but that comparison is invalid!


You keep suggesting this sort of thing, but you never provide an answer for anyone to debate. Please give us your method of this retesting so that we have something to work with.

I think you'll find upthread that I've made quite a few suggestions.

What I don't have is a complete and foolproof proposal. That is impossible expectation when there are many nay-sayers whose sole objective is to find reasons why any proposal wouldn't work.

Heaven forbid, we might as well watch Prine Minister's Question time if all we want to do is to be negative, it's always easy to take something complex and pour cold water on it.

What I'm saying is that 1600 deaths and 28000 serious injuries every year is something bad enough to be worthy of investigating to see how these statistics might be improved.

Bad driving habits are easy to see on the roads. In-vehicle technology already has many possibilities to address these bad habits. Further technology exists both inside and outside vehicles to aid enforcement against life threatening driving.

When options clearly exist to address something that kills and injures so many, I'm just suggesting that working together to develop acceptable ways to do so are worthwhile.

 

[The exile]

While trying to find a breakdown of those 1600 road deaths, I was amazed to see what a small effect COVID seemed to have. Yes, the numbers dipped, but not by anywhere near the amount I expected. (They were only 10% lower than 2024, for example).

 

[Shrop]

While trying to find a breakdown of those 1600 road deaths, I was amazed to see what a small effect COVID seemed to have. Yes, the numbers dipped, but not by anywhere near the amount I expected. (They were only 10% lower than 2024, for example).

Not too much of a surprise sadly. People kept well away from trains and buses etc, but hordes still went all over the place in their cars.
Still quieter than normal on the roads, but that brought about a widespread mentality of assumed freedom to speed on clearer roads with less enforcement of speed limits
So the quieter roads were offset by people taking far more chances than normal

 

[The exile]

Not too much of a surprise sadly. People kept well away from trains and buses etc, but hordes still went all over the place in their cars.
Still quieter than normal on the roads, but that brought about a widespread mentality of assumed freedom to speed on clearer roads with less enforcement of speed limits
So the quieter roads were offset by people taking far more chances than normal

The only useful breakdown I’ve found so far is by age - which straightaway shows that over a third of those deaths are unlikely to be prevented by re-testing as the 17-24 age group have got to a re-test. I suspect anyway that the causes of most fatalities and accidents (which is what I was looking for) are unlikely to show up in a re-test, where all but the most arrogant and /or incompetent are going to be concentrating and modifying their usual bad habits.