Creation of Road Safety Investigation Branch

[ABB125]

I personally find it astonishing that switching off street lights at night - sometimes even on motorways - is considered acceptable, given how much safer lit roads are compared to unlit ones.

I'm not convinced the electricity saved could ever "compensate" for the number of lives lost.

Personally I don't see much point in streetlights on motorways/other high-quality roads, especially given that all modern cars have good headlights. By all means have them at junctions where vehicles are interacting more, but on "plain line" sections there's no need. I believe Belgium, which at one point had ~100% motorway lighting, has removed a large amount of it recently.

I also wouldn't object to urban streetlights being turned off. But then again, I did grow up in the countryside where there weren't any lights of any sort for miles, so I'm perfectly happy walking along roads in complete darkness!

 

[ainsworth74]

Years ago filament based headlights were limited to 55watts- the logic being that wattage was directly related to brightness. Nowadays super bright LEDs/ xenons etc make that figure is no longer relevant.
Any advantage given by having a brighter dipped beam is outweighed by the horrific glare from oncoming vehicles and tailgating vehicles with higher positioned headlights eg vans/MPVs particularly in bad weather. Clearly this was recognised by earlier generations of road safety experts hence the old 55w limit. Perhaps this is the kind of area any new safety board should be examining?

Yes! I know exactly what you mean, I sometimes think that these modern bulbs in a van/MPV, even in dipped mode, are actually more blinding than conventional filament bulbs on the high beam setting. I wouldn't be at all surprised that if you looked into some accidents at night that a causal factor was one of the drivers being dazzled by oncoming traffic who were, correctly, using the dipped setting on their lights.

Is that something a police or insurance investigation (where you looking to establish who is at fault) would necessarily uncover? Even if it did would it be collated enough to help inform decision making? But it does sound like exactly the sort of thing an accident investigation branch type report would uncover and make recommendations around.

Personally I don't see much point in streetlights on motorways/other high-quality roads, especially given that all modern cars have good headlights. By all means have them at junctions where vehicles are interacting more, but on "plain line" sections there's no need.

It's an interesting one. I do think that they have a safety benefit even with modern car lighting. I regularly drive from Darlington to Redcar and the first half of the journey is on a dual-carriageway with full lighting throughout the second half is on a dual carriageway with a long section that is unlit. I do find the part of the journey which is illuminated feels considerably safer than when you transition into the section that is totally unlit.

But whether that translates into value for money? Dunno!

 

[swt_passenger]

I can’t find any source for 55w being a maximum. I suspect filament lamps would have met a BS AU standard, and 55W would be typical but plenty of cars back in the day had a four headlight main beam setup…

 

[Zamracene749]

I can’t find any source for 55w being a maximum. I suspect filament lamps would have met a BS AU standard, and 55W would be typical but plenty of cars back in the day had a four headlight main beam setup…

I think that the 55w rule applied to the lamps used in the dipped beam- if I recall correctly the rules were more liberal around the power of the main beam. I'm old enough to remember bolting higher powered spotlights- 'rally car style ' to the bumper bar of some of my earlier cars.

 

[GusB]

As I understand it, it's currently the Police who are responsible for investigating serious collisions. Having a separate body whose sole responsibility is to take over such work seems like a good idea to me as it will free up the Police to do other things.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

The police could use the free capacity to enforce traffic law!

 

[The Ham]

I would wager that a very large proportion of accidents could be designed out of our roads along with better maintenance.

Indeed, however that would require rebuilding the vast majority of the road network built before 1970 (if it hasn't been upgraded since).

Anything newer than that is likely to be well designed, with more modern schemes having to pass through a safety design check process with up to 4 stages.

I think its interesting to try and enforce something that isn't an 'industry' to me. For example air, rail & maritime incidents are all as a result of by employees / employers / workers by and their work environment as part of some sort of 'system'. The vast majority of drivers are just "members of the public" by and large. It may well be possible but I think its an important (and interesting) distinction compared to the other sectors.

Indeed, however there's an industry in designing and building roads, so learning from accidents could be useful.

I saw an interesting set of statistics which showed that after fitting camaras to lorries it halved the number of insurance claims, maybe all new cars should be fitted with cameras and the police have the right to collect the images from any car near to an incident. With after market camaras being recommended and then required (say) 8 years later.

With your own vehicle being able to act as witness against you it would likely improve driving standards. I've heard tales of aggressive behaviour until they clock a dash cam and then they behave, if they knew that every car had one their behaviour would likely be better at all times.

I would have thought, for example, there would be good learning to improve good practice for, for example, road junction design.

Road junction design has a fairly long standards document to work through. The problem is that those junctions which cause the biggest issues (when designed as they should be) are likely to be so specific that you may only encounter one in your professional career.

Personally I don't see much point in streetlights on motorways/other high-quality roads, especially given that all modern cars have good headlights. By all means have them at junctions where vehicles are interacting more, but on "plain line" sections there's no need. I believe Belgium, which at one point had ~100% motorway lighting, has removed a large amount of it recently.

I also wouldn't object to urban streetlights being turned off. But then again, I did grow up in the countryside where there weren't any lights of any sort for miles, so I'm perfectly happy walking along roads in complete darkness!

Given that when the street lights are turned off traffic volumes are very low chances are the risk of a road not being lit is low. Having very well lit roads can also be an issue, as people can forget to turn their lights on, which causes safety issues too.

The police could use the free capacity to enforce traffic law!

Chances are the police who were undertaken the accident investigation would move jobs, requiring more police to be trained to replace them.

 

[ainsworth74]

In all the excitement of recent weeks it seems to have slipped under the radar but following the consultation the Government are planning to include the creation of a Road Safety Investigation Branch in the Transport Bill:

I wish to inform the House that my Department has today (29 June 2022) published its response to the government consultation on establishing a Road Collision Investigation Branch.

This government is committed to improving road safety and reducing the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on our roads each year. I am pleased to announce that the government intends to bring forward new measures to enable the creation of the Branch, which, following discussions with stakeholders, will be named the Road Safety Investigation Branch.

This independent, safety-focused Branch will learn the lessons from road collisions and other incidents including those involving self-driving vehicles by carrying out independent investigations and making recommendations to prevent future incidents, make our roads even safer and save lives across the country.

The Branch will also provide vital insight into safety trends related to new and evolving technologies, which will help ensure road safety policy keeps pace with new developments.

We expect to include measures to enable creation of the Branch in the forthcoming Transport Bill.

Road Safety Investigation Branch launches

Independent, safety-focused Branch to make recommendations to prevent future incidents, make our roads even safer and save lives across the country.

www.gov.uk

 

[JohnMcL7]

It would be interesting to see if mechanical defects play any large part in the causes of accidents. I've noticed things like defective lights, but in the absence of traffic cops (when did you last see any traffic cops?), what is the deterrent in ensuring your car is maintained, has a legal MOT, insurance etc? (As an aside, the Youtube videos of accidents, mostly in Eastern Europe, often see a traffic cop appear very quickly; could an increase in UK traffic cops be funded by the fines they could impose for poor driving, mechanical defects etc?)

I am also intrigued by the number of foreign Mercedes and Transit vans on the roads - if they are UK based, do they avoid Road Fund Tax, MOTs, insurance etc?

The BBC have a series following crash investigators which I found gave a good insight into the cause of some of the accidents:

The Crash Detectives - Series 3: Episode 4

A cyclist fights for his life after a crash with an articulated lorry.

www.bbc.co.uk

The scope of their investigations is limited to a single area but what stands out is that almost every accident is caused by the driver either through a simple mistake, a medical incident, tiredness or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There is one that was caused by a defective vehicle where the car had failed massively on an MOT then suddenly passed it without issue and they believed the brakes weren't working properly but I can't think think of many others. It's in stark contrast to air and rail investigations where occasionally it will be a pilot/driver error but there's often a mix of factors which have lead to the accident and offers scope to prevent it happening again.

 

[Busaholic]

The BBC have a series following crash investigators which I found gave a good insight into the cause of some of the accidents:

The Crash Detectives - Series 3: Episode 4

A cyclist fights for his life after a crash with an articulated lorry.

www.bbc.co.uk

The scope of their investigations is limited to a single area but what stands out is that almost every accident is caused by the driver either through a simple mistake, a medical incident, tiredness or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There is one that was caused by a defective vehicle where the car had failed massively on an MOT then suddenly passed it without issue and they believed the brakes weren't working properly but I can't think think of many others. It's in stark contrast to air and rail investigations where occasionally it will be a pilot/driver error but there's often a mix of factors which have lead to the accident and offers scope to prevent it happening again.

Those were marvellous series. The stand-out episode for me, like many of them set in Wales, was the one where a psychopathic driver chose to cause another driver to crash and die on a fairly empty Christmas Day motorway because he suspected having been disrespected earlier. It was fantastic detective and forensic work carried out against the clock and produced an amazing result i.e. a few years imprisonment, which is the most that happens in this country. To my mind, he should have been charged with aggravated manslaughter and been sentenced accordingly, as well as receiving a lifetime driving ban.

 

[Bikeman78]

Those were marvellous series. The stand-out episode for me, like many of them set in Wales, was the one where a psychopathic driver chose to cause another driver to crash and die on a fairly empty Christmas Day motorway because he suspected having been disrespected earlier. It was fantastic detective and forensic work carried out against the clock and produced an amazing result i.e. a few years imprisonment, which is the most that happens in this country. To my mind, he should have been charged with aggravated manslaughter and been sentenced accordingly, as well as receiving a lifetime driving ban.

Yes an excellent series. The episode you mention, is that the one where they found a spec of paint from the motorcycle on one of the car wheels? The car driver showed no remorse and lied throughout.

 

[Shrop]

In all the excitement of recent weeks it seems to have slipped under the radar but following the consultation the Government are planning to include the creation of a Road Safety Investigation Branch in the Transport Bill:

Road Safety Investigation Branch launches

Independent, safety-focused Branch to make recommendations to prevent future incidents, make our roads even safer and save lives across the country.

www.gov.uk

Sadly, I have to say this is poppycock. Government is not committed to improving road safety, either now or at any time in the last few decades. Government pay lip service to road safety in order to appease those who want something done, but in practice they only ever do the tiniest fraction of what they easily could if they took road safety seriously.
Government is scared stiff of the power of the motor industry so they do very little to incur them extra work or expense, but the double whammy is that those making the decisions in Government are almost invariably car lovers themselves, who want the freedom to take the law into their own hands with their own driving. Like not having to stick to speed limits, or obey a myriad of other safety advice or rules.
Government are also scared of the media, and indeed of drivers themselves (ie. well over 90% of all voters), because they know that drivers are just like themselves, ie they want to berate everyone else's driving, while simultaneously wanting the freedom to do whatever they choose with their own.
I could go on, suffice to say that there are many, many ways that driving could be made hugely more safe, a great deal of which are inexpensive and straightforward, but Government won't even tackle those, in case they might upset people and lose votes. So whatever they do will be lip service and precious little more.

 

[Dai Corner]

Sadly, I have to say this is poppycock. Government is not committed to improving road safety, either now or at any time in the last few decades. Government pay lip service to road safety in order to appease those who want something done, but in practice they only ever do the tiniest fraction of what they easily could if they took road safety seriously.
Government is scared stiff of the power of the motor industry so they do very little to incur them extra work or expense, but the double whammy is that those making the decisions in Government are almost invariably car lovers themselves, who want the freedom to take the law into their own hands with their own driving. Like not having to stick to speed limits, or obey a myriad of other safety advice or rules.
Government are also scared of the media, and indeed of drivers themselves (ie. well over 90% of all voters), because they know that drivers are just like themselves, ie they want to berate everyone else's driving, while simultaneously wanting the freedom to do whatever they choose with their own.
I could go on, suffice to say that there are many, many ways that driving could be made hugely more safe, a great deal of which are inexpensive and straightforward, but Government won't even tackle those, in case they might upset people and lose votes. So whatever they do will be lip service and precious little more.

Enlighten us with your ideas for inexpensive and straightforward improvements to road safety please. To put them in context it would be useful to know how and how often you use roads.

 

[The Ham]

Sadly, I have to say this is poppycock. Government is not committed to improving road safety, either now or at any time in the last few decades. Government pay lip service to road safety in order to appease those who want something done, but in practice they only ever do the tiniest fraction of what they easily could if they took road safety seriously.
Government is scared stiff of the power of the motor industry so they do very little to incur them extra work or expense, but the double whammy is that those making the decisions in Government are almost invariably car lovers themselves, who want the freedom to take the law into their own hands with their own driving. Like not having to stick to speed limits, or obey a myriad of other safety advice or rules.
Government are also scared of the media, and indeed of drivers themselves (ie. well over 90% of all voters), because they know that drivers are just like themselves, ie they want to berate everyone else's driving, while simultaneously wanting the freedom to do whatever they choose with their own.
I could go on, suffice to say that there are many, many ways that driving could be made hugely more safe, a great deal of which are inexpensive and straightforward, but Government won't even tackle those, in case they might upset people and lose votes. So whatever they do will be lip service and precious little more.

A lot has been done behind the scenes, otherwise we'd not have seen crashes result in a fall of annual road deaths from about 3,600 in the 1990's (about 10 a day) to about 1,800 now (about 5 per day), even though traffic volumes have risen by about 1/3.

Things like Road Safety Audits, crash testing results being part of the sales of new cars, crash testing getting more stringent, and so on.

Yes there's more that could be done, and often some of the more in your face stuff (cycle lanes, LTN, HS2, bus lanes, rail enhancements, etc.) does get a lot of pushback.

 

[Shrop]

Enlighten us with your ideas for inexpensive and straightforward improvements to road safety please. To put them in context it would be useful to know how and how often you use roads.

Thanks for your interest, I'd like to think it was genuine and not simply in order to take up a contrary position to mine. However I do wonder why you find it necessary to ask how often I use roads? Let's just say I drive several times a week, I also have a lot of experience as a cyclist, and I've spent much of a career in local authorities and consultancies addressing complaints about people's driving (and parking).
So let me ask you, how often do you use roads and what experience do you have? Are you aware that of the 1500 or so road deaths every single year, plus many thousands more serious injuries, most are caused by driving without due care, with mainly avoidable faults like driving too close to the vehicle in front? The vast majority of drivers habitually drive too close to the vehicle in front, as you can see on most roads every day, yet almost nothing is done with the vast amounts of technology available to address this, and even less is done to enforce against it, despite (for example) the presence of huge numbers of motorway cameras which can already detect those drivers causing the risks.
Next, ask yourself how many qualifications in life are re-assessed, observed, re-examined etc. on a regular basis, whether or not the holder of the qualification has failed in something. But the holder of a driving licence, how often is their qualification re-examined, even after they have demonstrably proved incompetent by causing a bump, or an injury, or even worse?
I could go on, but people just switch off when driving is challenged, merrily putting things into the "too difficult" box, or fearing political unpopularity. Killing and injuring thousands of people is widely regarded as an acceptable part of life on the roads, when anywhere else it would be viewed with absolute horror. If that wasn't true, then a lot more would be done about it.
I've hardly started on what could be done, but alas I don't believe there's much genuine interest in addressing the problems of bad driving, which can be seen on most roads, most minutes of every single day. So tell me, how much genuine interest do you have?

A lot has been done behind the scenes, otherwise we'd not have seen crashes result in a fall of annual road deaths from about 3,600 in the 1990's (about 10 a day) to about 1,800 now (about 5 per day), even though traffic volumes have risen by about 1/3.

Things like Road Safety Audits, crash testing results being part of the sales of new cars, crash testing getting more stringent, and so on.

Yes there's more that could be done, and often some of the more in your face stuff (cycle lanes, LTN, HS2, bus lanes, rail enhancements, etc.) does get a lot of pushback.

These things generally only deal with the symptoms, not the cause, ie poor quality and unsafe driving. See my other comments.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've hardly started on what could be done

So go on, then. Unless you tell us your ideas, we can only assume you haven't actually got any. You seem to have just spent several paragraphs saying why you shouldn't!

Yes there's more that could be done, and often some of the more in your face stuff (cycle lanes, LTN, HS2, bus lanes, rail enhancements, etc.) does get a lot of pushback.

The first two improve things for cyclists and pedestrians, but they may in some cases do so at the expense of driver safety (or safety of pedestrians and cyclists on the main roads they increase traffic on) so are not necessarily a given. Badly designed cycle lanes can make things more dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians. As for LTNs, they seem to be pushed mainly by people who wish they'd bought a house in a cul-de-sac but without a proper turning area at the end. I am somewhat unconvinced by them myself.

I'm all for "full Dutch solutions" (i.e. full segregation, which does include some element of LTNs) but half-jobs can often be worse than nothing. In particular painted narrow cycle lanes are more dangerous than none because they encourage close passing and result in cycling too close to grids etc. A cycle lane should be physically segregated or wide enough for a safe pass at the speed limit, which means on a 60mph single carriageway they'd need to be at least 2m wide to allow for a 1.5m recommended minimum passing distance while avoiding the need to ride dangerously in the gutter (realistically nearer 2.5m).

 

[Shrop]

So go on, then. Unless you tell us your ideas, we can only assume you haven't actually got any. You seem to have just spent several paragraphs saying why you shouldn't!

Perhaps you should read my comments again. I've detailed two major ways in which road safety could be improved. I case it wasn't obvious enough these are
1. Deterring drivers from following too close to the vehicle in front via in-vehicle technology, and enforcement. Necessary because such driving is one of the biggest risks to road safety.
2. Making re-examination of driving capabilities a regular thing.

I don't quite see what you don't understand about my previous comments, and why you would say I haven't provided ideas?

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair it was quite difficult to pick them out of your lengthy single-paragraph rant.

1. Vehicles are increasingly fitted with this sort of "autobrake" tech in various forms, so this is on the way. It's difficult to enforce it, but the tech is nicely developing and it will indeed reduce rear-endings and low speed collisions with pedestrians. Notably the UK is by no means the worst for this - have you tried driving in Italy or France?

2. This would just be a huge and costly bureaucracy - unless you intend it to reduce the number of drivers it would cost more than it is worth. "Exam technique" is not difficult - drivers would mostly be able to modify their driving to pass the retest, then would return to their old ways once passed.

 

[Shrop]

To be fair it was quite difficult to pick them out of your lengthy single-paragraph rant.

Thanks for bearing with me during my rant. Most people prefer to ignore most things which criticise poor driving habits.

1. Vehicles are increasingly fitted with this sort of "autobrake" tech in various forms, so this is on the way. It's difficult to enforce it, but the tech is nicely developing and it will indeed reduce rear-endings and low speed collisions with pedestrians. Notably the UK is by no means the worst for this - have you tried driving in Italy or France?

Ah, so because France and Italy may be worse than us, we're excused from taking it all that seriously?

2. This would just be a huge and costly bureaucracy - unless you intend it to reduce the number of drivers it would cost more than it is worth. "Exam technique" is not difficult - drivers would mostly be able to modify their driving to pass the retest, then would return to their old ways once passed.

You've fallen straight into the trap of putting this into the "Too difficult" box. 1500 deaths and many thousands more injuries would say it's worth the effort. Try telling someone in a hospital bed with only one leg left, that the driver who ran into them and shunted them into the path of an oncoming lorry, might have had to suffer a bit of inconvenience if they'd had to take another test. Especially when that driver says "I didn't realise it was wrong to follow too close, after all everyone else does it". There are many, many things about driving that people just don't realise, because we, led by Government, just don't focus on them.

I may not get chance to comment much in the next few hours as I'm heading out for most of the day, but I will gladly pick this up this evening, or before that if I get chance. If anyone wants to discuss it, that is. There's a whole lot more that ought to be discussed!

 

[Dai Corner]

Thanks for your interest, I'd like to think it was genuine and not simply in order to take up a contrary position to mine.

It is, and isn't.

I've held a driving licence for over 35 years and driven extensively on all types of roads, though less in the last 20 years after buying a house within walking distance of work and latterly retiring and qualifying for a concessionary bus pass. I like to observe fellow road users whether from the driving seat, bus seat or pavement. I've had only one at-fault incident which was a few weeks after passing my test.

To pick up on the two points currently under discussion my not particularly upmarket car warns me if it thinks I'm about to rear-end another vehicle (so the salesman told me; I'm not inclined to test it) and flashes the hazard lights automatically if I brake heavily.

As regards driver training and re- testing, those convicted of speeding often opt to go on speed-awareness courses in lieu of fines/points and courts can, I believe, disqualify careless or dangerous drivers until they've passed a test. Notably, the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders and horse riders, don't need any training or assessment at all. I'd like to see them being fined and given points on their driving licences if they commit traffic offences.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, so because France and Italy may be worse than us, we're excused from taking it all that seriously?

Where did I say that? I said such tech is on the way!

You've fallen straight into the trap of putting this into the "Too difficult" box.

Things should only be done if they pass a cost-benefit analysis. This to me very clearly would not, because most drivers would just adapt their behaviour to pass the test then carry on as before, so the benefits would be utterly negligible. The one case where it might make sense is periodic retesting for older drivers where their reactions may be dulling with age, though in reality free bus passes have delivered much of that benefit using a carrot rather than a stick - my Dad for example (who isn't that old) now gets the bus for most local journeys because it's free, when previously he wouldn't be seen dead on one. Find a way to add local rail and make local cycling safer (Dutch style) and you'll reduce older drivers anyway.

As regards driver training and re- testing, those convicted of speeding often opt to go on speed-awareness courses in lieu of fines/points and courts can, I believe, disqualify careless or dangerous drivers until they've passed a test. Notably, the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders and horse riders, don't need any training or assessment at all. I'd like to see them being fined and given points on their driving licences if they commit traffic offences.

I've heard very good thing about speed awareness courses even from people who you'd think would rubbish them and carry on going around at limit+10mph (as my Dad's generation used to) - there could be an argument to require, CPC style, completion of some sort of one day "refresher training" every 5-10 years or so (perhaps integrated in licence renewal) including stuff like highway code updates rather than an actual retest. Ideally classroom, online is of little benefit as people just click through, and quite a lot cheaper to implement than full retesting.

 

[DelayRepay]

I've heard very good thing about speed awareness courses even from people who you'd think would rubbish them and carry on going around at limit+10mph (as my Dad's generation used to) - there could be an argument to require, CPC style, completion of some sort of one day "refresher training" every 5-10 years or so (perhaps integrated in licence renewal) including stuff like highway code updates rather than an actual retest. Ideally classroom, online is of little benefit as people just click through, and quite a lot cheaper to implement than full retesting.

I had to do a speed awareness course about 10 years ago. I was cynical, but actually found it engaging and interesting, and I think I became a safer driver as a result. My bad habits crept back in*, and I had to do another one during the Covid lockdown, which was online but presented via Zoom. Again, engaging, interesting and has made me a safer driver.

So I do think there could be value in asking everyone to do a refresher type course every 10 years or so, rather than just those who get caught by a camera. I agree a 'click through' online course would be useless.

Other types of driver (buses, trains) have to have regular assessments. I know they driver bigger vehicles and carry more people, but why shouldn't car drivers have to have some form of ongoing training?

 

[Busaholic]

Yes an excellent series. The episode you mention, is that the one where they found a spec of paint from the motorcycle on one of the car wheels? The car driver showed no remorse and lied throughout.

Sorry to take so long to respond. Yes, that was the episode, and a psychopath got jailed but, as ever with deaths caused by drivers, for a term much less than if he had used a weapon other than a car to attack the victim. For anyone who didn't see the episode, the car driver deliberately decided to 'bump into' the motorcyclist for no obvious reason on a motorway at high speed.

 

[Shrop]

... most drivers would just adapt their behaviour to pass the test then carry on as before, so the benefits would be utterly negligible.

Hmm, so you straight away accept all of their bad habits, without any thought that re-focussing drivers' minds on a regular basis might actually have some benefit. And if the benefits of tests are negligible, why bother with re-tests in any profession?

The point of re-tests etc is to focus people's minds and condition them into driving safely as a permanent feature of their driving, which should be backed by support from all corners. I don't understand why people should be so scared of this, or so hostile towards it. Read through some of my earlier comments again, with an open mind rather than just wanting to be contrary.

I had to do a speed awareness course about 10 years ago. I was cynical, but actually found it engaging and interesting, and I think I became a safer driver as a result. My bad habits crept back in*, and I had to do another one during the Covid lockdown, which was online but presented via Zoom. Again, engaging, interesting and has made me a safer driver.

So I do think there could be value in asking everyone to do a refresher type course every 10 years or so, rather than just those who get caught by a camera. I agree a 'click through' online course would be useless.

Other types of driver (buses, trains) have to have regular assessments. I know they driver bigger vehicles and carry more people, but why shouldn't car drivers have to have some form of ongoing training?

Absolutely agree, and cars are a lot more likely to kill people than trains are, simply because the infrastructure on which they travel isn't regulated anything like as much as the rail infrastructure is. Which reinforces the need for tighter control on the driving capabilities.

 

[DelayRepay]

Absolutely agree, and cars are a lot more likely to kill people than trains are, simply because the infrastructure on which they travel isn't regulated anything like as much as the rail infrastructure is. Which reinforces the need for tighter control on the driving capabilities.

I guess the counter-argument is that the impact of a car crash is likely to be much lower than a train crash.

But I have always found it odd that I am allowed to take a machine that can kill people out on the road, having been judged competent to do so on the basis of less than an hour's driving around local roads in good conditions. I'd practiced on those roads, like I expect most people had, so I'd learned exactly where to brake, where to slow down etc. And anyway, that was over 20 years ago in a much less powerful car than I drive today.

There are other things we could learn from professional drivers too - e.g. every RAIB report I read seems to consider the effect of fatigue, and the railways have strict rules about driving hours etc. Yet as a car driver, I could drive non-stop from Lands End to John O'Groats if I could hold my bladder for long enough.

When I've asked at work for train travel or an overnight stay to avoid too much driving, some people think I'm taking the mickey (even though I don't consider 3+ hours of driving, a full day meeting, then 3+ hours driving back to be reasonable, or safe)

 

[MotCO]

Can I add my two-penneth?

1. There has been a significant increase in concrete central resrvations, rather than crash barriers. I assume that this has helped reduce head-on accidents, which, given the aggregate speed of impact, probably accounted for some road deaths.
2. I often see small foreign registered, Mercedes vans on the M25. I can't think why small vans would be over here - large jugernauts , yes, but small vans? Could it be that they are based over here, in which case, are they subject to the same MOT, insurance and driver testing rules as the UK? Ditto for any other foreign registered vehicles which 'reside' here.
3. Would more police patrols help improve road safety? I hardly ever see any police patrols on motorways, or on other roads. Fines they impose for spotting poor / dangerous driving could help fund them. I have seen some motorists weaving in and out of lanes with impunity, knowing that they are hardly ever to be caught. Ditto, middle lane hoggers - how can they be educated unless police patrols pull them up?
4. Linked to the previous point, what can be done about the poor use of indicators, unless they are spotted by police patrols?

 

[Dai Corner]

3. Would more police patrols help improve road safety? I hardly ever see any police patrols on motorways, or on other roads. Fines they impose for spotting poor / dangerous driving could help fund them. I have seen some motorists weaving in and out of lanes with impunity, knowing that they are hardly ever to be caught. Ditto, middle lane hoggers - how can they be educated unless police patrols pull them up?
4. Linked to the previous point, what can be done about the poor use of indicators, unless they are spotted by police patrols?

I think police motorway patrols have been replaced by civilian patrols provided by National Highways and the equivalent devolved organisations.

Their remit is to assist motorists who've broken down, remove debris and deal with the aftermath of collisions.

I'd have thought the quantity and quality of CCTV cameras on motorways and major roads would be sufficient to secure convictions if anybody watched them with that in mind.

 

[Shrop]

3. Would more police patrols help improve road safety? I hardly ever see any police patrols on motorways, or on other roads. Fines they impose for spotting poor / dangerous driving could help fund them. I have seen some motorists weaving in and out of lanes with impunity, knowing that they are hardly ever to be caught. Ditto, middle lane hoggers - how can they be educated unless police patrols pull them up?
4. Linked to the previous point, what can be done about the poor use of indicators, unless they are spotted by police patrols?

The idea of using fines to fund enforcement is excellent, but for reasons I've never really understood, let alone agreed with, it's never done.

I remember when speed cameras (Gatso) were first introduced, most local authorities desperately wanted them but they simply couldn't afford them. So Gatso offered that all local authorities could have as many as they wanted for free, so long as Gatso could keep just 10% of all the money collected in fines. You might think this would solve problems of speeding at a stroke, which it may well have done, but it was simply dismissed. Okay, that idea might have been too draconian, but with an accompanying review of our (often unrealistic and highly frustrating) speed limit system, maybe a lot less so, and perhaps worth thinking about.

Moving forward, yes police enforcement on motorways could be highly effective and extremely useful, and easily affordable too if the fines were used to fund it, but the idea would also go straight into the "too difficult" box. But why? For precious little reason other than that those in charge can't (or won't) get their act together to consider how it might be beneficial ie by saving countless lives, saving NHS pressure from all the accidents, saving massive economic costs of congestion caused by those accidents etc etc. All people can focus on is imagining things like the police being unfairly selective about their enforcement. So why not think about proper training and ways of actually achieving something useful?

Okay, all too difficult and impractical? So do the opponents of such ideas prefer the alternative of horrific numbers of accidents, congestion, economic costs? Do they think it's acceptable for millions of drivers to not even know that driving too close etc is actually a hazard?

These are just "off the top of my head" comments, nothing given much thought. I'm up for developing them and a couple of comments above from others have shown interest, but alas, the vast majority of people remain either dismissive or disinterested, which is why, sadly, the chances of meaningful progress remain virtually non existent.

 

[MotCO]

I think police motorway patrols have been replaced by civilian patrols provided by National Highways and the equivalent devolved organisations.

Their remit is to assist motorists who've broken down, remove debris and deal with the aftermath of collisions.

Exactly. Highway Patrols do not have any law enforcing powers, which is what is required.

 

[Starmill]

Things should only be done if they pass a cost-benefit analysis. This to me very clearly would not, because most drivers would just adapt their behaviour to pass the test then carry on as before, so the benefits would be utterly negligible. The one case where it might make sense is periodic retesting for older drivers where their reactions may be dulling with age, though in reality free bus passes have delivered much of that benefit using a carrot rather than a stick - my Dad for example (who isn't that old) now gets the bus for most local journeys because it's free, when previously he wouldn't be seen dead on one. Find a way to add local rail and make local cycling safer (Dutch style) and you'll reduce older drivers anyway.

Precisely. And of course, much more subsidy for local bus fares and a little more for metro and local rail to bring them down to a competitive rate with driving and parking would result in people of all ages and occupations driving less, and thus fewer collisions and injuries. Combined with the other benefits this would so clearly have a net benefit. But of course it's not really something that the current government has ever been interested in.