Bad traffic enforcement

[Shrop]

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 rules. And yet despite our roads being far less safe with terrible records of deaths and serious injuries, very little is done to enforce against bad driving.

Speed limits tend to be enforced in a manner which justifiably attracts complaints of being done mainly to generate money rather than to actually improve road safety.

Elsewhere there are cameras at traffic lights in some larger urban areas, but in most places very little interest is shown in making our roads safer.

Why is this?

 

[Sun Chariot]

As someone who, daily, sees truly abysmal driving standards on England's south coast M- and A-roads, I would dearly like to see a form of electronic monitoring (and an auto reporting, of breaches, to a law-enforcing body) made compulsory in all new vehicles on the UKs roads.
People make the roads dangerous, roads don't make roads dangerous.

Mainland UK has approximatey 247,200 miles of public roads*, of which nearly 30,000 miles are A-roads and almost 19,000 miles are B-roads. Motorways, in the main, benefit from CCTV coverage and from patrols (Highways Agency, Police), so I have not focussed on those.
So the question is: how to identify and stop poor / careless / dangerous driving on the near-49,000 miles of A- and B-roads which - typically - are more likely to be the "speedable" roads than, say, unclassified roads / lanes.

*Based on 2025 data from the Department for Transport.

 

[Shrop]

So the question is: how to identify and stop poor / careless / dangerous driving on the near-49,000 miles of A- and B-roads which - typically - are more likely to be the "speedable" roads than, say, unclassified roads / lanes.

Speeding is part of the safety problem, but I'd say that following too close to the vehicle in front is far more of a cause of accidents.
I see little danger in doing 80mph on an almost empty motorway (so yes, worthy of upgrading since most drivers exceed 70mph anyway), but doing 65mph at just a car length behind the vehicle in front is far more dangerous.
Technology exists in most vehicles these days, why not an alarm which screeches constantly when the two second rule is broken, and after 10 seconds (to allow a dangerous manoeuvre to be completed) gives an automatic gentle brake application?

 

[Sun Chariot]

"Angry" driving culture endemic along East Hampshire + West Sussex coast:
Speeding / too close / aggressive lane-changes / intimidating other road users.
Electric bikes with "feral" teens, mostly after dark, no lights, 60mph in 30mph roads, often wrong side of road and doing wheelies, forcing oncoming traffic to swerve.

Undue care and attention: sudden lane-to-lane manoeuvres, not seeing and adjusting for changed traffic-flow or potential hazard.
I've seen two drivers actually stop in the middle of the M27, where one of its lanes filters into the joining (from right) M275. On both occasions, the driver waited and indicated right, as if to pull out out of a minor road junction...

Hence why I think all new vehicles must be fitted with constant monitoring and with no exception for poor driving.

 

[Harpo]

Technology exists in most vehicles these days, why not an alarm which screeches constantly when the two second rule is broken

Already exists. (My other half has switched it off.)

But, please, no more audible alerts. The only alert on older cars was a ping when outside temperature dropped to 4 degrees whereas now it could be anything and it’s a distraction trying to establish what it means.

Otherwise, a yes to anything to improve worsening driving standards.

 

[edwin_m]

Speeding is part of the safety problem, but I'd say that following too close to the vehicle in front is far more of a cause of accidents.
I see little danger in doing 80mph on an almost empty motorway (so yes, worthy of upgrading since most drivers exceed 70mph anyway), but doing 65mph at just a car length behind the vehicle in front is far more dangerous.
Technology exists in most vehicles these days, why not an alarm which screeches constantly when the two second rule is broken, and after 10 seconds (to allow a dangerous manoeuvre to be completed) gives an automatic gentle brake application?

Roadside cameras can now detect tailgating: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/caught-on-camera-10000-tailgaters-spotted-in-just-two-weeks

Almost 10,000 vehicles were caught tailgating in the first two weeks of new cameras being tested to clamp down on the offence.

 

[Harpo]

Roadside cameras can now detect tailgating: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/caught-on-camera-10000-tailgaters-spotted-in-just-two-weeks

And the full force of the law for tailgating will be……

motorists caught tailgating can expect to receive letters advising them they were too close to another vehicle and highlighting the dangers of not leaving safe braking distances.

Oh dear.

 

[edwin_m]

And the full force of the law for tailgating will be……

Oh dear.

But probably more effective than the system you mentioned in #5, especially as it can be switched off.

Strongly worded letters may be the initial response, but some penalty could be added in future, for example for continuing the behaviour after being warned. It's also possible that in the event of an accident caused by tailgating, the camera evidence could be reviewed for similar behaviour by that vehicle.

 

[bramling]

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 rules. And yet despite our roads being far less safe with terrible records of deaths and serious injuries, very little is done to enforce against bad driving.

Speed limits tend to be enforced in a manner which justifiably attracts complaints of being done mainly to generate money rather than to actually improve road safety.

Elsewhere there are cameras at traffic lights in some larger urban areas, but in most places very little interest is shown in making our roads safer.

Why is this?

Part of the problem is there’s now just so much bad driving even if there was a significant number of police going round dealing with people, it would merely represent a drop in the ocean.

The London and south east area is by far the worst. Any motorway journey is such a miserable experience nowadays, even when the road is quiet there are always guaranteed to be a handful of people who still manage to create problems. It isn’t really speed that’s the issue, just abominable standards of driving - atrocious lane discipline, poor spatial awareness, poor speed selection, failure to recognise or anticipate potential hazards, botched lane changes, etc etc etc. Mainly things which cannot be easily detected by camera enforcement.

Perhaps a solution would simply to be to massively jack up the cost of motoring, simply to get a proportion of people off the road. In particular stop cars being available on finance deals.

One nut that could be slightly easier to crack is poor standard of driving from some so-called professional drivers. It should be easier to have a more stringent level of competence assurance for this group, which I’d say is easily justifiable on the basis that larger / heavier vehicles pose added risk.

 

[Harpo]

One nut that could be slightly easier to crack is poor standard of driving from some so-called professional drivers.

I feel far more comfortable with a true HGV in my rear views than I do with the passenger carrying trucks looking to ‘push’ my speed.

 

[greatkingrat]

And the full force of the law for tailgating will be……

Oh dear.

The problem is that tailgating is not an offence by itself. It may be evidence to support a charge of driving without due care or attention / careless driving, but one photo wouldn't be enough to prove that.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

One thing that would be useful would be to fit red light cameras on every traffic light in the country - and make it a strict liability offence upon the registered keeper unless they can say who was driving if it wasn't them.

Might concentrate a few minds...

 

[Oxfordblues]

Here in Oxford we have an epidemic of illegal electric motorcycles:
No lights
No numberplates
No "L"-plates
No helmets
No licence
No tax
No insurance
You can easily tell that they're never pedal-driven as the chains are always rusted-up.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I feel far more comfortable with a true HGV in my rear views than I do with the passenger carrying trucks looking to ‘push’ my speed.

The correct way to deal with tailgaters is not to increase your speed. It's to reduce your speed in order to increase the distance between your own vehicle and the one in front as a way of reducing overall risk (assuming you were already driving at a sensible speed for the conditions).
If you feel someone is "looking to push your speed" remember that they can't actually control anything to do with your car. If you're doing everything correctly then let them seethe. Don't be intimidated, that just makes the roads less safe for everyone.

 

[Harpo]

The correct way to deal with tailgaters is not to increase your speed. It's to reduce your speed in order to increase the distance between your own vehicle and the one in front as a way of reducing overall risk (assuming you were already driving at a sensible speed for the conditions).
If you feel someone is "looking to push your speed" remember that they can't actually control anything to do with your car. If you're doing everything correctly then let them seethe. Don't be intimidated, that just makes the roads less safe for everyone.

Absolutely right. It’s the discomfort of the tailgater having no safety margin, and I’m next.

 

[JohnofWessex]

I can think of two possible actions

Firstly Road Traffic Offences are not 'recorded' If they were it would show up on a DBS check or be reported to employers in some cases. That would have an impact in particular on middle class drivers who might find themselves having to explain to their employers why they were now banned, caught doing 40 in a 30 limit etc

Secondly you can only lose your licence either on medical grounds or as a result of criminal proceedings. If there was a 'non criminal' route eg 'Not a Fit and Proper person' car found in a ditch etc that would make getting unfit drivers off the road less difficult

 

[Mcr Warrior]

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

Surely great big potholes in roads can make roads dangerous?

 

[Sun Chariot]

Surely great big potholes in roads can make roads dangerous?

Potholes made by people (in vehicles).
Some of our borough's roads are so bad, I fully expect to find a team of rope-ascending potholers emerging from them.

 

[edwin_m]

Most speed bumps can only be passed over in comfort at about 10mph below the speed limit, so people brake and accelerate which isn't good for fuel consumption or for the noise and pollution experienced by people nearby. I can't see why they couldn't be designed so only speeders get the bump.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can think of two possible actions

Firstly Road Traffic Offences are not 'recorded' If they were it would show up on a DBS check or be reported to employers in some cases. That would have an impact in particular on middle class drivers who might find themselves having to explain to their employers why they were now banned, caught doing 40 in a 30 limit etc

Employers won’t care. Why should they care if you went too fast?

(The fact that offences aren’t recorded on PNC doesn’t affect the liability of someone to tell their employer or prospective employer anyway)

 

[Ted633]

Most speed bumps can only be passed over in comfort at about 10mph below the speed limit, so people brake and accelerate which isn't good for fuel consumption or for the noise and pollution experienced by people nearby. I can't see why they couldn't be designed so only speeders get the bump.

This is where I prefer the speed bumps that only cover the middle of the lane (i.e. you have to straddle it). Comfortable at 30 mph, but the risk of getting it wrong increases with speed.

 

[35B]

I can think of two possible actions

Firstly Road Traffic Offences are not 'recorded' If they were it would show up on a DBS check or be reported to employers in some cases. That would have an impact in particular on middle class drivers who might find themselves having to explain to their employers why they were now banned, caught doing 40 in a 30 limit etc

Secondly you can only lose your licence either on medical grounds or as a result of criminal proceedings. If there was a 'non criminal' route eg 'Not a Fit and Proper person' car found in a ditch etc that would make getting unfit drivers off the road less difficult

All that would happen is that the current non-recordable offences would fall under the category of "not fit & proper", saving some time in the magistrates' courts but guaranteeing claims of rough justice from some people.

As others have said, there are other reasons why middle class professionals might have to declare a driving ban - it affects eligibility for company car schemes and many jobs require mobility.

 

[172007]

Employers won’t care. Why should they care if you went too fast?

(The fact that offences aren’t recorded on PNC doesn’t affect the liability of someone to tell their employer or prospective employer anyway)

An employer may care for the following reasons.

The employee is:

A risk taker
Cant follow simple rules
Is feckless
Always rushing so suffers from tardiness
Poor or lacking judgement
The list is endless in some ways

 

[AlterEgo]

An employer may care for the following reasons.

The employee is:

A risk taker
Cant follow simple rules
Is feckless
Always rushing so suffers from tardiness
Poor or lacking judgement
The list is endless in some ways

Employers don’t care about this at the present. Why would anything change?

 

[edwin_m]

Employers won’t care. Why should they care if you went too fast?

(The fact that offences aren’t recorded on PNC doesn’t affect the liability of someone to tell their employer or prospective employer anyway)

My employer requires notification of penalty points for anyone who drives on business, and frequent drivers or those with poor records may have to receive training. This is a socially responsible practice, considering that company vehicles being driven badly have impacts on wider society. It also reduces insurance costs and disruption to work if key staff are injured in accidents.

 

[Harpo]

An employer may care for the following reasons.

The employee is:

A risk taker
Cant follow simple rules
Is feckless
Always rushing so suffers from tardiness
Poor or lacking judgement
The list is endless in some ways

That list sounds more like the person spec for most delivery van drivers.

I don’t see any of the courier companies getting concerned about the proliferation of their vehicles parked on pavements astride double yellow lines with their hazard ‘parking wherever I want’ lights on.

 

[Dr_Paul]

I've been driving for over 50 years, having passed my test in 1973, and I don't think that there has been much of a change in respect of driving behaviour. I remember fast drivers (an uncle of mine would delight in whizzing us around in his Cortina at 50 or 60mph along 30mph main roads), inconsiderate ones, boy racers (not us, we couldn't afford fast motors), dreamy drivers dawdling along narrow roads well below the speed limit and/or dawdling at junctions when I would pull safely into the main road, bad parking, tailgating speedsters and lorries, slow lorries taking miles to overtake an even slower lorry on a two-lane dual carriageway, careless pedestrians walking onto the road without looking, buses bossing their way around (my dad told me never to argue with a bus; London Transport had lawyers who could prove that it was you who hit the bus, not that the bus hit you; I don't if that was true). Little has changed here, except that I think that buses aren't so assertive these days.

What has changed is the amount of traffic. It's far more busy on the road today than 50 years back, far more motors, lorries, vans, buses and bikes, plus some unwelcome newcomers, especially the delivery box-boys with their electric bikes mentioned previously. Roads are far more cluttered now; on the journey from my house across the town centre to the other side of town there used to be about four sets of traffic lights; there are now over 20. There's much more 'stop and start' driving, less chance to drive smoothly and comfortably, and this is exacerbated by speed-bumps and other such things. That's why (apart from the fact I have a London Old Codger's free travel pass) I don't drive much these days.

 

[jon0844]

And the full force of the law for tailgating will be……

Oh dear.

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

 

[AlterEgo]

My employer requires notification of penalty points for anyone who drives on business, and frequent drivers or those with poor records may have to receive training. This is a socially responsible practice, considering that company vehicles being driven badly have impacts on wider society. It also reduces insurance costs and disruption to work if key staff are injured in accidents.

That’s quite different, if driving is part of your job and they are responsible for insuring you.

 

[Shrop]

The problem is that tailgating is not an offence by itself. It may be evidence to support a charge of driving without due care or attention / careless driving, but one photo wouldn't be enough to prove that.

The question is, why is tailgating not an offence? It's getting ever easier to provide evidence of it happening, and it is responsible for huge numbers of deaths and injuries.
Then there is the driver capability issue. Driving requires an examination which is bizarrely valid for many decades.
Can you imagine pilots, train drivers, hgv drivers etc being given a licence, and then never re-tested? And yet car drivers are given carte blanche for life, often even after they have proved their incapability beyond doubt by driving into other vehicles.
There's something quite sinister about the hold that cars seem to have over people's lives.
It's curious how people will defend their own driving, and yet their views about it all can change massively if they, or a close friend or family member suffers serious injury caused by the bad driving of a stranger.