Onibury crossing accident and road driver capabilities

[Shrop]

Yesterday evening (18th February 2025) at 6.50pm a pickup truck crashed on to the level crossing at Onibury in South Shropshire, completely blocking the railway. It was only by good fortune that trains were able to be stopped, as a train hitting this at line speed could well have been derailed, and had a train been passing the other way shortly after, then the result doesn't bear thinking about.

Pictured: Damage after van crash on level crossing as rail disruption continues

Trains are facing disruption between Shrewsbury and Hereford after a van crashed on a level crossing in south Shropshire.

www.shropshirestar.com

As I understand it, drivers of trains who run red signals are punished heavily even though they may stop shortly after the signal and no harm results, and without even risking any obstruction of rail tracks. But after a career in road traffic, I've often wondered why drivers on roads seem to have such an incredibly relaxed set of rules where even dangerous, let alone "only" careless driving, which causes problems of a potentially very serious nature, routinely gets completely ignored. Plenty of technology now exists to counter bad driving (in-car warning systems, road junction camera enforcement etc etc.), and another 35 people WILL die on UK roads in the next week with many hundreds more suffering life changing injuries (these being people who right now suspect this no more than you and me do), and yet most of us just keep ignoring this frightening reality and very little gets done.

While we can be very grateful that this Onibury accident didn't lead to any loss of life on the railways (and it seems that the truck driver wasn't badly injured either) - isn't it about time that driving on the roads was taken very much more seriously, with more regular re-tests for drivers and more meaningful assessments of their capabilities? If we continue to brush bad driving under the carpet, then next time an accident such as this one at Onibury may have far more serious consequences, and then the authorities might wish they'd acted sooner. Is it just me, or perhaps we should see last night's accident as a warning that road driving really does need to be taken more seriously?

 

[Gloster]

Well, others may correct me, but I think that Onibury is a Full-barrier manned crossing and the barriers were up at the time, so the risk of a train hitting the vehicle in this incident was pretty well zero. That doesn’t affect the general point, but the thoughts could be relevant to other types of crossing.

 

[Shrop]

Well, others may correct me, but I think that Onibury is a Full-barrier manned crossing and the barriers were up at the time, so the risk of a train hitting the vehicle in this incident was pretty well zero. That doesn’t affect the general point, but the thoughts could be relevant to other types of crossing.

While I agree that crossing gates in the raised position should afford full protection to trains, that isn't really the point. Someone driving so carelessly that they could overturn their vehicle here, might also have driven in such a careless manner that they could have crashed through the barrier even if it was closed. Or perhaps a different driver might have driven through a closed barrier, given how many careless and dangerous drivers there are on our roads. The point is that driving isn't taken seriously enough, given the risks, deaths and injuries that it involves, and the relative ease with which these risks could be reduced.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

George Monbiot, from https://www.eta.co.uk/news/if-you-want-to-kill-someone-do-it-in-a-car-2:

"If you want to kill someone, the best way to do it is in a car because you are highly likely to get away with it. One of the reasons is that people are being killed by cars all the time. We tolerate a level of killing by cars that we don't tolerate in any other area. If as many soldiers were killed in combat every year in UK wars, we would be up in arms. We would be outraged. Horrified. Astonished. We would demand government action. But when it comes to people being killed by cars, we just accept this as part of the ordinary course of life, and death. Well, it's about time we stopped accepting it."

 

[signed]

I've often wondered why drivers on roads seem to have such an incredibly relaxed set of rules where even dangerous, let alone "only" careless driving, which causes problems of a potentially very serious nature, routinely gets completely ignored. Plenty of technology now exists to counter bad driving (in-car warning systems, road junction camera enforcement etc etc.), and another 35 people WILL die on UK roads in the next week with many hundreds more suffering life changing injuries (these being people who right now suspect this no more than you and me do), and yet most of us just keep ignoring this frightening reality and very little gets done.

Politics, and it's basically the only reason.

Car usage is enshrined in everyone's mind as sacred (in some countries more than others) and anything done to curb car usage is seen as wanting to dunk at the poorer classes. And enforcing in-car systems is pointless as ways around it will always be found.

Same reason why any fuel duty increase in the UK is seen as political suicide and, in most countries, why money is always found to build highways and never found to build lifeline public transport

 

[Shrop]

George Monbiot, from https://www.eta.co.uk/news/if-you-want-to-kill-someone-do-it-in-a-car-2:

Absolutely right. The thing I can never understand is why so many rail professionals, for example the large numbers on this forum, are so willing to just accept this favouritism towards roads, which is underlined by the fact that so few are likely to sympathise with my concern. I can only think that it's because the vast majority of rail professionals are in fact also car drivers.

Politics, and it's basically the only reason.

Car usage is enshrined in everyone's mind as sacred (in some countries more than others) and anything done to curb car usage is seen as wanting to dunk at the poorer classes.

This may be what politicians think, and of course they're the ones with the power to change (or more likely not change) our laws. However I'm not sure it's true among the vast numbers who have been injured or have had relatives or friends killed by someone's careless or dangerous driving.

And enforcing in-car systems is pointless as ways around it will always be found.

This would depend on the strength of any enforcement laws. It could be mandated that all car drivers have tachographs, which could be inspected after every accident, and would be a necessary insurance submission for any accident claim, or as part of document submission after any speeding or other traffic offence, with heavy penalties for failure to have a tachograph in full working order. (I would just say here, that enforcement should be reasonable. For example doing 80mph on an empty motorway would NOT need to be penalised as heavily as failure to have a working tachograph - it would all need to be done fairly, in the context of actual danger caused).

These tachographs would also be inspected at M.O.T., all it needs is a willingness to do it. Of course it would cost to have them fitted, but no more than luxury items such as heated seats, automatic wipers or headlights etc, and a great deal less than many of the capabilities that drivers of 4WD cars are willing to pay for, yet which they never use.

Same reason why any fuel duty increase in the UK is seen as political suicide and, in most countries, why money is always found to build highways and never found to build lifeline public transport

I wish you were wrong on this one, but sadly I fear that you're absolutely right. Rachel Reeves could have raised a good couple of £billion by doing no more than what everyone expected at her first budget and raising fuel duty by 5p, but instead she upset people throughout the UK by pinching far smaller amounts off pensioners and farmers, and all whilst presiding over our hospitals, police force, jails, schools etc, being grossly under-funded. A strong Government would go ahead and make changes along with explanations of why they're doing it, rather than just running scared as successive UK Governments do. I don't see why we should subscribe to the practice of perpetuating our dangerous driving just because we're too weak and short-sighted to address it.

 

[Bald Rick]

As I understand it, drivers of trains who run red signals are punished heavily even though they may stop shortly after the signal and no harm results, and without even risking any obstruction of rail tracks.

You understand incorrectly.

Where train drivers have a signal passed at danger, the circumstances will always be investigated, and if the driver is at fault (which is not always the case) it will be added to his/her record, and a training / development plan put in place to help the driver avoid making similar mistakes again. If the driver was wilfully negligent with no mitigating circumstance, they may well be subject to internal disciplinary processes.

If after the training and development plan is completed another similar incident occurs, and depending on what else is on his/her record, and the severity of the incidents, it is possible the driver will lose their job. But this is relatively rare.

It is certainly not the case that all drivers of trains who pass red signals are punished heavily, and nor should it be.


One major point of difference is that in for the last 25-30 years or so, every time a signal is passed at danger it is a) found out*, and b) subject to a formal investigation. Obviosuly this is not the case with road transport.



* I don’t discount the possibility that on some ‘sleepier’ parts of the network that very short distance SPADs have gone unreported, particularly in sidings.

 

[Shrop]

You understand incorrectly.

Where train drivers have a signal passed at danger, the circumstances will always be investigated, and if the driver is at fault (which is not always the case) it will be added to his/her record, and a training / development plan put in place to help the driver avoid making similar mistakes again. If the driver was wilfully negligent with no mitigating circumstance, they may well be subject to internal disciplinary processes.

If after the training and development plan is completed another similar incident occurs, and depending on what else is on his/her record, and the severity of the incidents, it is possible the driver will lose their job. But this is relatively rare.

It is certainly not the case that all drivers of trains who pass red signals are punished heavily, and nor should it be.


One major point of difference is that in for the last 25-30 years or so, every time a signal is passed at danger it is a) found out*, and b) subject to a formal investigation. Obviosuly this is not the case with road transport.



* I don’t discount the possibility that on some ‘sleepier’ parts of the network that very short distance SPADs have gone unreported, particularly in sidings.

Thanks for this explanation and I stand corrected.

But think about this, if every time a car driver was to run a red light (and caught by being captured on camera), can you imagine the implications of subjecting them to a training/development plan! Nevertheless there is an argument that a train driver running a red light might do so at 5mph and simply stop a few yards beyond it, whereas a car driver could well be accelerating just to beat the light, and simultaneously be in very close proximity to other drivers, or pedestrians, thus posing a far greater actual danger than the train driver did.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Absolutely right. The thing I can never understand is why so many rail professionals, for example the large numbers on this forum, are so willing to just accept this favouritism towards roads, which is underlined by the fact that so few are likely to sympathise with my concern. I can only think that it's because the vast majority of rail professionals are in fact also car drivers.


This may be what politicians think, and of course they're the ones with the power to change (or more likely not change) our laws. However I'm not sure it's true among the vast numbers who have been injured or have had relatives or friends killed by someone's careless or dangerous driving.

This would depend on the strength of any enforcement laws. It could be mandated that all car drivers have tachographs, which could be inspected after every accident, and would be a necessary insurance submission for any accident claim, or as part of document submission after any speeding or other traffic offence, with heavy penalties for failure to have a tachograph in full working order. (I would just say here, that enforcement should be reasonable. For example doing 80mph on an empty motorway would NOT need to be penalised as heavily as failure to have a working tachograph - it would all need to be done fairly, in the context of actual danger caused).

These tachographs would also be inspected at M.O.T., all it needs is a willingness to do it. Of course it would cost to have them fitted, but no more than luxury items such as heated seats, automatic wipers or headlights etc, and a great deal less than many of the capabilities that drivers of 4WD cars are willing to pay for, yet which they never use.

I wish you were wrong on this one, but sadly I fear that you're absolutely right. Rachel Reeves could have raised a good couple of £billion by doing no more than what everyone expected at her first budget and raising fuel duty by 5p, but instead she upset people throughout the UK by pinching far smaller amounts off pensioners and farmers, and all whilst presiding over our hospitals, police force, jails, schools etc, being grossly under-funded. A strong Government would go ahead and make changes along with explanations of why they're doing it, rather than just running scared as successive UK Governments do. I don't see why we should subscribe to the practice of perpetuating our dangerous driving just because we're too weak and short-sighted to address it.

I appreciate your anger - as a cyclist I witness downright aggressive, reckless and dangerous motorists daily. To be scrupulously fair, however, have the police released details of their investigation - the driver doesn't appear to have been arrested? I always come to a near stand over that particular crossing as there is a very pronounced 'hump' over the rails.

 

[MarkyT]

While I agree that crossing gates in the raised position should afford full protection to trains, that isn't really the point. Someone driving so carelessly that they could overturn their vehicle here, might also have driven in such a careless manner that they could have crashed through the barrier even if it was closed. Or perhaps a different driver might have driven through a closed barrier, given how many careless and dangerous drivers there are on our roads. The point is that driving isn't taken seriously enough, given the risks, deaths and injuries that it involves, and the relative ease with which these risks could be reduced.

I note from aerial photography the A49 approach to the crossing from Craven Arms is gently curved and fast for nearly four km. It tightens quickly to a long ~200m radius right-hand curve over the crossing. There can be no road superelevation across the railway clearly and a 40mph restriction applies on final approach. I suspect the cause is highly likely to be speed-related loss of control. Should be a bridge.


A 36 yr old man, the driver of the pickup truck, has been arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol:

Man arrested after pickup truck level crossing crash near Powys border

The driver of a pickup truck that crashed into a level crossing and rolled onto the railway tracks near the Powys-Shropshire border has been…

www.countytimes.co.uk

 

[Shrop]

I appreciate your anger - as a cyclist I witness downright aggressive, reckless and dangerous motorists daily. To be scrupulously fair, however, have the police released details of their investigation - the driver doesn't appear to have been arrested? I always come to a near stand over that particular crossing as there is a very pronounced 'hump' over the rails.

When you say there is a pronounced hump, are you sure you have the right crossing? The one at Onibury really isn't that bad - you should try crossing the one further north along this same route, by Nantwich station, that one is far, far more severe! But aside from that, would you not suspect that if the fault was the severity of the hump on the crossing (which I doubt), then the vehicle would have come to rest some distance beyond the tracks rather than right on them?

 

[Bald Rick]

But think about this, if every time a car driver was to run a red light (and caught by being captured on camera), can you imagine the implications of subjecting them to a training/development plan!

Accepting this doesn‘t happen with red light runners, who when caught get points and fined, but it does often happen with people caught speeding - the training and development plan is the Speed Awareness Course.

Also, and again not strictly for red light runners, but there are plenty of examples of where people lose their driving licences (for whatever reason) that some of them have to retake their driving test to regain it. Thats training and development by another name.

 

[Llanigraham]

I note from aerial photography the A49 approach to the crossing from Craven Arms is gently curved and fast for nearly four km. It tightens quickly to a long ~200m radius right-hand curve over the crossing. There can be no road superelevation across the railway clearly and a 40mph restriction applies on final approach. I suspect the cause is highly likely to be speed-related loss of control. Should be a bridge.
View attachment 174941

A 36 yr old man, the driver of the pickup truck, has been arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol:

Man arrested after pickup truck level crossing crash near Powys border

The driver of a pickup truck that crashed into a level crossing and rolled onto the railway tracks near the Powys-Shropshire border has been…

www.countytimes.co.uk

The "incident" happened with a vehicle coming towards this viewpoint, (from Ludlow towards Craven Arms) and it should be noted, from photos in various other reports, that it overturned because it climbed the fence by the side of the house seen behind the 40 sign on the southern side of the crossing, before launching itself onto the line, damaging the barrier and pedestal at that point.

To replace this crossing with a bridge would be very difficult due to the proximity of the two houses, the 3 road junctions within a short distance of the crossing and the river bridge immediatley to it's south.

 

[Shrop]

Accepting this doesn‘t happen with red light runners, who when caught get points and fined, but it does often happen with people caught speeding - the training and development plan is the Speed Awareness Course.

Also, and agai not strictly for red light runners, but there are plenty of examples of where people lose their driving licences (for whatever reason) that some of them have to retake their driving test to regain it. Thats training and development by another name.

I think you should stand at any of thousands of traffic signal junctions around the UK that don't have cameras and see just how many cars really do run red lights and don't get caught. I can't immediately quantify this, but it's probably more than you realise. Same with drivers who exceed speed limits without getting caught. Try driving along a motorway that isn't too busy at 70mph and count the numbers of cars that pass you with complete impunity, many travelling a good deal faster than you, not just a bit faster. Then calculate how many must be breaking the law around the country, every single day. I reiterate that I don't have a big problem with exceeding 70mph on quiet motorways, but I don't like just how far into the sand so many people's heads are on this. Then you could start on counting the numbers of drivers who follow too close to the vehicle in front, ie another cause of huge numbers of accidents, yet who do so with impunity.

If you think the numbers of drivers who are having "training and development" does any more than very, very lightly scratching the surface of bad and illegal driving, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't immediately quantify this, but it's probably more than you realise.

I see it every day, multiple times. I have no doubt that no-one truly knows how often it happens, and it will vary around the country.

If you think the numbers of drivers who are having "training and development" does any more than very, very lightly scratching the surface of bad and illegal driving, you're sadly mistaken.

I wasn’t suggesting that for one minute. What I was explaining is that every example of a train driver passing a red signal is ‘caught’, and many (but not all) that do so have some form of development plan as a result. And a decent proportion of those caught speeding also end up on some form of dvelopment plan, namely a speed awareness course. Complete guess here, but based on experience in this house and amongst friends, of those caught speeding, more than half end up on speed awarenes.

The issue is that there a lot, lot more drivers who are speeding that are not ‘caught’.

Therefore it is not the post ‘catch’ implications that are intrinsically different, but being the chances of being caught in the first place.

But in the example of this thread, the driver has been caught. And will probably end up without his licence, and having to retake a driving test.

 

[D6130]

I appreciate your anger - as a cyclist I witness downright aggressive, reckless and dangerous motorists daily. To be scrupulously fair, however, have the police released details of their investigation - the driver doesn't appear to have been arrested? I always come to a near stand over that particular crossing as there is a very pronounced 'hump' over the rails.

 

[PG]

Politics, and it's basically the only reason.

Car usage is enshrined in everyone's mind as sacred (in some countries more than others) and anything done to curb car usage is seen as wanting to dunk at the poorer classes.

This may be what politicians think, and of course they're the ones with the power to change (or more likely not change) our laws. However I'm not sure it's true among the vast numbers who have been injured or have had relatives or friends killed by someone's careless or dangerous driving.

While the vast numbers affected by careless or dangerous driving may be of a similar viewpoint, I believe that society as a whole accepts these consequences because of the lifestyle which it enables them to live.

Phrase the question as - How much of a reduction in the standard of living is society prepared to accept so that the majority of injuries and fatalities are eliminated?

Over the past couple of years society has become concerned about the cost of living. Append their current lifestyle on to that. This then reflects the aspirational society we live in, which I suggest the majority are unlikely to be willing to sacrifice.

As @signed has concisely said - Politics. At the end of the day politics reflects the views of the nation(s) within the UK.

 

[Shrop]

I wasn’t suggesting that for one minute.

Sorry, no offence intended, it just seemed like you were suggesting that bad driving is sufficiently addressed, when it isn't.

What I was explaining is that every example of a train driver passing a red signal is ‘caught’, and many (but not all) that do so have some form of development plan as a result. And a decent proportion of those caught speeding also end up on some form of dvelopment plan, namely a speed awareness course. Complete guess here, but based on experience in this house and amongst friends, of those caught speeding, more than half end up on speed awarenes.

You could be right on this, but whereas all train drivers running a red light are caught, the numbers of car drivers caught could well be in single figure percentages. Using Shrewsbury as an example (and I guess many other towns are similar), I'm not aware that ANY drivers have been prosecuted for running red lights for many months, perhaps even many years. There are about 20 sets of traffic lights around the town (including the by-pass), and let's say one per approach lane runs a red light at each cycle, which could be a conservative estimate. If each junction has an average of 8 approach lanes, and cycle time of one minute, that would translate as something over 5000 (ie 8x60x12) for the busiest 12 hour period of the day. Or almost 2 million per year, and that's just in Shrewsbury. That's a pretty high rate of not being caught.

The issue is that there a lot, lot more drivers who are speeding that are not ‘caught’.

Therefore it is not the post ‘catch’ implications that are intrinsically different, but being the chances of being caught in the first place.

But in the example of this thread, the driver has been caught. And will probably end up without his licence, and having to retake a driving test.

Yes, caught in this case, but as in my example of running red lights above, just how much dangerous driving goes unpunished? The point is, that one reason drivers pay so little attention to safe driving, is precisely because they know they simply don't risk being punished for transgressions. If they did, and paid more attention to the real responsibilities that driving involves, then accidents might become considerably less likely to happen. Surely this is worth more thought and effort than we (as a country, both the elected and the electorate) usually give it?

Phrase the question as - How much of a reduction in the standard of living is society prepared to accept so that the majority of injuries and fatalities are eliminated?

Where on earth do you get the notion that safe driving requires a reduction in the standard of living? That's rubbish, and simply an excuse for wholesale failure to address the situation.

 

[PG]

Where on earth do you get the notion that safe driving requires a reduction in the standard of living?

I think that, were there to be serious efforts to remove unsafe drivers then fewer people would have be able to live their lives how they wish e.g. parents no longer able to transport their children to the school of their choice or to events; delivery costs rising because of a smaller number of delivery drivers; etc. etc.

 

[Lewisham2221]

You could be right on this, but whereas all train drivers running a red light are caught, the numbers of car drivers caught could well be in single figure percentages. Using Shrewsbury as an example (and I guess many other towns are similar), I'm not aware that ANY drivers have been prosecuted for running red lights for many months, perhaps even many years. There are about 20 sets of traffic lights around the town (including the by-pass), and let's say one per approach lane runs a red light at each cycle, which could be a conservative estimate. If each junction has an average of 8 approach lanes, and cycle time of one minute, that would translate as something over 5000 (ie 8x60x12) for the busiest 12 hour period of the day. Or almost 2 million per year, and that's just in Shrewsbury. That's a pretty high rate of not being caught.

Sorry, but there is absolutely no way that over 5000 people per day are running red lights at every junction.

 

[bramling]

While the vast numbers affected by careless or dangerous driving may be of a similar viewpoint, I believe that society as a whole accepts these consequences because of the lifestyle which it enables them to live.

Phrase the question as - How much of a reduction in the standard of living is society prepared to accept so that the majority of injuries and fatalities are eliminated?

Over the past couple of years society has become concerned about the cost of living. Append their current lifestyle on to that. This then reflects the aspirational society we live in, which I suggest the majority are unlikely to be willing to sacrifice.

As @signed has concisely said - Politics. At the end of the day politics reflects the views of the nation(s) within the UK.

I’d say it’s slightly more nuanced than that. I reckon it would be possible to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries on the road quite substantially simply by making the competence assurance regime a little stiffer, and in particular by finding an effective way of getting a relatively small number of drivers off the road.

The reason it doesn’t happen is because, as another poster said, people are too heavily reliant on their cars, such that to do this would be bordering on political suicide, even though the outcome would be very much for the greater good.

In essence, for some of the population driving is probably the most technically challenging task they have to undertake, and for a proportion of those people it is pushing or beyond their level of aptitude and competence. Not the sort of thing a politician wants to address when they’re after votes.

 

[PG]

Sorry, but there is absolutely no way that over 5000 people per day are running red lights at every junction.

Professional bodies will likely hold data on this, and FOI requests may also be a source of information.

 

[bramling]

Sorry, but there is absolutely no way that over 5000 people per day are running red lights at every junction.

If we were to consider the very letter of the law, which is that people are supposed to stop on yellow unless it is unsafe to do so, I’d say it’s quite possible at some locations that you have one vehicle running the lights per cycle.

 

[PG]

The reason it doesn’t happen is because, as another poster said, people are too heavily reliant on their cars...

...which enables them to live their lifestyle.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Sorry, but there is absolutely no way that over 5000 people per day are running red lights at every junction.

There's 2 or 3 running the red light at every cycle at one particular junction in Epsom - that would be roughly 320 people a day, so I agree the figure of 5000 a day is going to be way too high, but I can well believe that red light running is rife.

If we were to consider the very letter of the law, which is that people are supposed to stop on yellow unless it is unsafe to do so, I’d say it’s quite possible at some locations that you have one vehicle running the lights per cycle.

In my mention above, I am counting the vehicles which cross the junction after the lights are already green for the conflicting traffic - they will have had more than enough time to safely stop for the cycle. The fact is that drivers do regularly flout the law on traffic lights.

There's more than a few in Epsom who will start away across a pedestrian crossing while the lights are still red because they start the moment the pedestrian has crossed. That's if they've even bothered to stop in the first place.

 

[bramling]

...which enables them to live their lifestyle.

It isn’t just a lifestyle thing, for many people car is the only viable way to be able to get between where they live and anywhere else, especially in rural areas.

It’s always cringeworthy to watch the various TV programmes where people get pulled up for misdemeanours in their cars, and how often the phrase “this car is my lifeline” crops up, normally accompanied by wails and tears. It’s quite pathetic really, but such is life, sadly.

 

[High Dyke]

These tachographs would also be inspected at M.O.T., all it needs is a willingness to do it. Of course it would cost to have them fitted, but no more than luxury items such as heated seats, automatic wipers or headlights etc, and a great deal less than many of the capabilities that drivers of 4WD cars are willing to pay for, yet which they never use.

And don't forget, the card is a digital card, like the driving licence. Therefore, there's also a cost for issuing a card etc. These are currently:

Fees
It costs:

£32 for your first GB driver digital tachograph card
£19 to renew an expired card
£19 to replace a lost or stolen card
£32 to change an EU, EEA or Northern Ireland tachograph card to a GB tachograph card

Source: https://www.gov.uk/apply-driver-digital-tachograph-card

 

[Shrop]

Sorry, but there is absolutely no way that over 5000 people per day are running red lights at every junction.

It's not precise, but try standing at a few different sets of traffic lights for half an hour and see for yourself. Some might be less, some might be more, but even if it was just one tenth of this amount, it's still horrendous. Trouble is, such info is too politically sensitive to publish.

I think that, were there to be serious efforts to remove unsafe drivers then fewer people would have be able to live their lives how they wish e.g. parents no longer able to transport their children to the school of their choice or to events; delivery costs rising because of a smaller number of delivery drivers; etc. etc.

That almost sounds like you're advocating that unsafe drivers are entitled to be on our roads!

There's 2 or 3 running the red light at every cycle at one particular junction in Epsom - that would be roughly 320 people a day, so I agree the figure of 5000 a day is going to be way too high, but I can well believe that red light running is rife.

Yes, this figure may be high, but is your figure 320 per traffic lane? Many junctions have 2 lanes for each of 4 or more approaches to the junction. In addition, even if each cycle is 100 seconds (which is longer than for many junctions), that's 780 cycles per 12 hours, rather more than your 320 ...

 

[PG]

That almost sounds like you're advocating that unsafe drivers are entitled to be on our roads!

Not at all. Like many things in life people and their government talk infrequently about road safety but steer clear (pun intended) of implementing measures that would upset the status quo. I recall discussion on another (possibly level crossing) thread where the government were thinking of setting up an accident investigation branch for roads. Needless to say although politicians and others expressed approval, the money to fund it wasn't forthcoming and the proposal quietly disappeared!

 

[The exile]

Try driving along a motorway that isn't too busy at 70mph and count the numbers of cars that pass you with complete impunity, many travelling a good deal faster than you, not just a bit faster. Then calculate how many must be breaking the law around the country, every single day. I reiterate that I don't have a big problem with exceeding 70mph on quiet motorways, but I don't like just how far into the sand so many people's heads are on this.

I remember it being said many years ago by someone official (who wasn’t condoning it) that by driving at 70mph on the M4 you were effectively obstructing the traffic!