Teenage motorist who hit and killed cyclist two months after passing test banned from driving for a year, ordered to complete 180 hours unpaid work, and fined £240

This statement from the judge would appear to confirm the existence of a give way sign.

Quote:

“You pulled out and you struck Mr Preston, who had the right of way. You didn’t see him – you should have.

We dont know if he stopped or not, but even if he did, stopping at a give way sign and then driving into somebody on the main carriageway is not 'giving way'.

With you on the last minute brakers. I don't think it's (always) because they only see a cyclist at the last second. I get the bejesus scared out of me regularly like this when I'm driving as well. Not as scary as when on the bike but I do wonder what, if anything, is going through a lot if drivers heads.

IanMK wrote:

One of the things that makes me most nervous is drivers flying up to give way signs and applying their brakes at the last moment. You have no idea if they've seen you. As part of a risk assessment to prevent reoccurrence the give way should be a stop sign and a camera to make sure drivers aren't tempted to roll through (like they do at nearly every other stop sign).

100%, every single day, usually multiple times, I have to brake and/or swerve to anticipate the possible emergence of drivers who think the way to approach a give way is to approach at or over the speed limit and then emergency brake to stop just at or over the line. Many drivers also appear to believe that the correct way to stop at a give way is with the line under the driver's arse rather than with the front bumper behind it. Maybe there should be signs posted fifty yards back from junctions saying "Give way approaching, reduce speed now"?

All true Rendel, but more signs at the taxpayers expense...just to tell fuckwits what they should already know...?

pockstone wrote:

All true Rendel, but more signs at the taxpayers expense...just to tell fuckwits what they should already know...?

Well yes, and no faith they would be obeyed. GPS chips in cars maybe the way forward, if you're recorded not slowing down as you approach a give way ticket in the post?

... and (going beyond this case) only requires we verify they can drive according to the conditions on their licence once per lifetime!  (Laws, vehicles and even roads being subject to change during that time).

There is a big push towards a graduated licence system here in the UK. That's a good thing. You might want to google it and sign up your support.

Legin wrote:

The real villain here is a training and testing system that passess drivers without the skills or awareness needed to be safe on the roads.

My son is a flight instructor, and there are strong incentives for him to only allow students who are actually ready to test, to do so. I hurts his metrics if his students fail.

There are also feedback mechanisms to incentivise check pilots to only pass competent students.

There will always be terrible drivers who can pass tests by (for instance) just not doing a bunch of drugs that morning, but I think you could catch a lot of it by figuring out who is training or passing the bad drivers. For instance, any time a driver with less than five years of experience gets to six penalty points, add them to a database with details on who their instructor and tester were. Then mine that database for instructors, schools, and testers who are disproportionately represented and either send them for remedial training, or in extreme cases ban them from creating more bad drivers.

All good stuff - although I can imagine creating some perverse incentives with this if not careful.  Flying is easier to regulate I suspect - far fewer pilots / people don't "have to fly"...

OTOH with "mass motoring" - at least as we currently conceive it - I suspect that more regulation of entry to the driving pool will be fighting against another (the main) goal of the system - that it should permit the majority of adults to drive!  (Especially incentivised in young people because "freedom" and "marker of being an adult" and "getting stuff done and a job" and probably still a dash of "sex".  Powerful motivations...)

In the UK driving is the primary mode of transport (well - taking walking for granted as we tend to do...)

I've just looked at this junction on Gmaps. Stop sign or not ,(not. Give way only) I can't believe any driver wouldn't come to a full stop at this junction. More so for one who'd just recently passed their test.

I have been having similar conversations with my 18 year old who is learning to drive as I was flabbergasted to learn that his instructor is telling him to roll through give way junctions if it is clear. The problem is that you can't tell it is clear if you don't take the time to stop and look!

LeadenSkies wrote:

I have been having similar conversations with my 18 year old who is learning to drive as I was flabbergasted to learn that his instructor is telling him to roll through give way junctions if it is clear. The problem is that you can't tell it is clear if you don't take the time to stop and look!

Nonsense I'm afraid.  There are many junctions, perhaps a majority, where it is perfectly possible to assess traffic without stopping your vehicle.  This is why they are called "Give Way" and not "Stop".

Training drivers to stop at every junction is unnecessary, verging on the lunatic.

I'm very happy with the ideas you are suggesting there in general BUT if we're talking a proper infra solution here I think more than "kerbs and signs" nudges are needed.

How thorough do you want to be? If you want to look at that idea - (and I haven't looked beyond the picture here) - first is it even a good idea to have cyclists here? If the A-road is NSL? Mixing modes with extreme speed differences AND with turning / crossing traffic? And where drivers are inevitably going to focus on "looking for motor vehicles" since numbers of cyclists will likely be *very* low?

That then sends us off looking at numbers cycling or even likely to want to cycle there and why (is it a "route" - or would it be of most people would cycle on such a road? Are there alternatives?)

Tgen - is there is psychological pressure on drivers turning out to "get up to (NSL?) speed as soon as possible?

This is also a kind of crossroads - they can be associated with higher crash rates (more directions to check). It's more "safer for drivers" but perhaps a "voorrangsplein" design for some of these junctions would be in line with that also:

https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/02/voorrangsplein-part-1.html

The first step there is NSL of 50 (I'd argue 40) on single carriagrways.

Then rewriting LHAs from the DNA up.

The issue with this logic is that you would then have to ban people for life when they nearly kill someone. The difference between this lad and thousands every day is bad luck. I have had dozens of incidents on the roads that I avoided because I either saw them coming or am a competent enough cyclist that I managed to skirt them at the last second. Those people should 100% be banned too if you are saying this lad should never drive again. 

mctrials23 wrote:

The issue with this logic is that you would then have to ban people for life when they nearly kill someone. The difference between this lad and thousands every day is bad luck. I have had dozens of incidents on the roads that I avoided because I either saw them coming or am a competent enough cyclist that I managed to skirt them at the last second. Those people should 100% be banned too if you are saying this lad should never drive again. 

Not at all. If there's no fatality, then just apply existing penalties. The idea is to ensure that the victim's friends and family know that at least the driver won't get the chance to kill again with a valid license.