As a simple possibility, people used to have to renew their driving licences every few years; that they don't have to do this any more is part of the problem. If drivers regularly had to attend refresher courses, driving standards would improve pretty quickly--e.g., you'd be able to remind them of things they regularly get wrong, such as the rules for driving at mini-roundabouts, which are not known to many drivers.
Not to mention ASZs.. but I think there's a bigger problem here, which is that at the national, as opposed to London, context, car-dependency is at a level where it's politically unacceptable to deny obviously incompetent people access to their own vehicle. On an individual scale, you have people driving despite 12 and in some cases 20+ points on their license, and on a population-wide scale, the DVLA turning a blind eye to the fact that many elderly people are no longer fit to be behind the wheel. It's easier for government to ignore the problem than to provide real alternatives - rural bus services have seen cut after cut.
It's key to understand just why the driving test in Britain is poor; it's not that the bar is set low (there is still a large amount of stuff to learn), but the problem lies in the way it is examined.
This extends to the practical test. Much emphasis on procedural stuff like 3-point turns, reverse parking, emergency stops under clear conditions etc., very little on reading the road, driving psychology or vulnerable road users.
I'm curious as to why you seem to think that this would somehow be easier than keeping drivers' knowledge up-to-date?
Modally filtering every last residential street in Zones 1-4 would cost in the low hundreds of millions - bollards don't cost any more than the ineffective variety of traffic calming (in which category I'd place most speed humps and chicanes). Money isn't the issue.
While filtering is a pretty cost-effective solution, and cuts out most of the problems, it would still be a mammoth undertaking to do this, and crucially it would (still) lack public support in many places.
Then do it where it's popular, and develop the argument elsewhere to make it popular (or at least, popular enough to be implementable - there's no statutory requirement for a majority of residents in favour). It's a good enough idea that it ought to be able to spread - once installed, very few people have ever asked for it to be removed. Even motorists like to live on cul-de-sacs.
I'd like to see the argument for it advanced in terms of mobility rights - along similar lines to the case made for disabled-accessible public transport and workplaces. Public support should not be the deciding factor - a kid who wants to go to the park independently - or a grandmother who'd like to cycle to the shops - has no network where rat-running is left uncontrolled, in the same way that a man in a wheelchair has no network when faced with a flight of steps to catch his train. Yes, removing rat runs makes the motor vehicle network slightly less optimal - but for many people, the other modes have no network at all right now. That's plainly an unjust situation, regardless of whether or not the residents of Street A want a bollard at one end.
I also feel that, in training / education terms, it's right that kids on bikes should mix with cars to some extent - but it's absolutely vital that the traffic be neutered to a point where they can do so with adequate margin for error. That's simply not possible with through-traffic - it's against the driver's own immediate interests to behave calmly and considerately, and all the education in the world isn't going to make the kind of dimwitted, selfish scum who do 40 in a 30 while on their mobile change on that front.
Not to mention ASZs.. but I think there's a bigger problem here, which is that at the national, as opposed to London, context, car-dependency is at a level where it's politically unacceptable to deny obviously incompetent people access to their own vehicle. On an individual scale, you have people driving despite 12 and in some cases 20+ points on their license, and on a population-wide scale, the DVLA turning a blind eye to the fact that many elderly people are no longer fit to be behind the wheel. It's easier for government to ignore the problem than to provide real alternatives - rural bus services have seen cut after cut.
This extends to the practical test. Much emphasis on procedural stuff like 3-point turns, reverse parking, emergency stops under clear conditions etc., very little on reading the road, driving psychology or vulnerable road users.
Modally filtering every last residential street in Zones 1-4 would cost in the low hundreds of millions - bollards don't cost any more than the ineffective variety of traffic calming (in which category I'd place most speed humps and chicanes). Money isn't the issue.
Then do it where it's popular, and develop the argument elsewhere to make it popular (or at least, popular enough to be implementable - there's no statutory requirement for a majority of residents in favour). It's a good enough idea that it ought to be able to spread - once installed, very few people have ever asked for it to be removed. Even motorists like to live on cul-de-sacs.
I'd like to see the argument for it advanced in terms of mobility rights - along similar lines to the case made for disabled-accessible public transport and workplaces. Public support should not be the deciding factor - a kid who wants to go to the park independently - or a grandmother who'd like to cycle to the shops - has no network where rat-running is left uncontrolled, in the same way that a man in a wheelchair has no network when faced with a flight of steps to catch his train. Yes, removing rat runs makes the motor vehicle network slightly less optimal - but for many people, the other modes have no network at all right now. That's plainly an unjust situation, regardless of whether or not the residents of Street A want a bollard at one end.
I also feel that, in training / education terms, it's right that kids on bikes should mix with cars to some extent - but it's absolutely vital that the traffic be neutered to a point where they can do so with adequate margin for error. That's simply not possible with through-traffic - it's against the driver's own immediate interests to behave calmly and considerately, and all the education in the world isn't going to make the kind of dimwitted, selfish scum who do 40 in a 30 while on their mobile change on that front.