Learners - Who is driving?

In the absence of L plates the following car assumed that the car in front would proceed (as most experienced drivers would) and by tailgating he was trying to get across too.

On a point of detail, the learner did not "go through the barrier", she went under the barrier, past the lights.

If I'd been in the car behind I would have behaved no differently. I'd have assumed she would keep going and out the other side - as others have already said was perfectly feasible given the barrier on t'other side comes down that bit later.

and it is possible that the following car would NOT have followed an identifiable learner

At the start of the video (which presumably is not the real start), it looks like the car was stopped, with a queue of stationary cars behind and a big gap in front. In which case the driver and the supervisor may have done the correct thing, and we don't know why the driver then moved off just before the left hand gates descended.

I'm not sure "tailgating" is fair comment as ISTM at the start of the clip there is a queue of (stationary?) cars - possibly because the learner stopped. When she moves off a gap opens up between her and the following car which only closes when she stops on the crossing.

PS

FTAOD when I said I'd have done the same as the car behind, I didn't mean that I'd have tried to get across too!

MrCheerful submitted this idea :

Except she wasn't displaying L plates.

johannes used his keyboard to write :

It did look as if that was the intention of the following driver, because (s)he had to rapidly reverse out from under the gate, then reversed some more when the lead car began to reverse.

There were still pedestrians crossing when the lead car began to progress over the crossing, plenty of time to continue across, but I guess she was simply spooked by the lights and bells.

I don't think I would have made any assumption. I give L-plates a wide berth in situations just like this where there behaviour may not be the same as an experienced driver.

I would expect you may well still be 10% at fault and possibly lost your NCB if not protected. Either way there are good reasons why even a no-fault accidents puts up your premium.

My point exactly

There were no L plates on the car to give anyone a clue.

Which was wrong because the lights were already blinking. (as most experienced drivers would know)

Once the lights and sound has started, you should not make a judgement whether it was feasible or not, rather make allowance for anything to happen, even the possibility of assisting someone else in trouble. What's the rush?

Still wrong to follow the car below the barriers

I didn't say it was right, it is just most likely to happen, I drive through that crossing several times a week and I know what happens there.

I wouldn't. That said, a design which allow this to happen is poor. Because innocent people could be caught up in the mayhem. Similar to some slip roads that I know about. 50% idiots, the other 50% just cought up in getting their cars smashed.

In article , Ted scribeth thus

Perhaps the qualified driver had pissed off and was running for his or her life to get away from the oncoming train crash;!...