Page 17 – PetrolPrices

Pay to pass: clean air zone charges too high for most motorists

Feb 9, 2021

As the 2025 ban on new petrol and diesel cars looms closer, more and more flaws within the plan are beginning to surface.

This week, concerns have been raised about the prices motorists will have to enter certain areas in eco-friendly cities, like London and Birmingham, that have designated clean air zones.

As the name suggests, clean air zones are being implemented to improve local air quality and support the government’s plan to ‘go green’. As it stands, if your vehicle exceeds emission standards, you will have to pay a charge to drive in a clean air zone.

With only 9% of motorists planning on buying an electric vehicle as their next vehicle, these charges will impact over half a million drivers in these areas. And the charges are anything but cheap.

To drive in a clean air zone in Birmingham, motorists will have to pay £8 each time they wish to travel through the area from June of this year. In London, where clean air zone charges are already in place, the price will be upped to £12.50 from October this year.

An online introduction to clean air zones from Birmingham City Council explains the main reason behind their decision to introduce these zones and their charges: ‘Our population is growing, new buildings are growing up…and we have the Commonwealth games to look forward to in 2022. All these things are great for the city and region. We want everyone to enjoy them, now and in the future. Improving air quality will mean more people, especially children, live healthier lives.’

‘We need cleaner air as soon as possible and have already started to make positive changes.’

They also explain the concept of a clean air zone in the hopes of aiding the understanding of the reasoning behind their implementation: ‘A clean air zone is an area where targeted action is taken to improve air quality, in particular by discouraging the most polluting vehicles from entering the zone.’

They conclude by reassuring motorists that ‘no vehicle will be banned’ from entering these zones, however ‘those which do not have clean enough engines will have to pay a daily charge to travel within the area.’

[Image Source: Shutterstock, Feb 2021]

The impact of clean air zone charges on motorists

While there is no dispute that clean air zones are necessary to protect our planet’s future, it is the rate of the charge and the number of drivers who will be forced to pay it that has caused concern.

In London, up to 250,000 vehicles may be non-compliant with emissions regulations, and in Birmingham, a further 100,000 may face the same issue, AA conducted research suggests.

AA president, Edmund King, addressed the concerns that many motorists will not be able to afford the clean air zone charges by saying: ‘Millions of drivers in London will find themselves on the wrong side of the road when the scheme is expanded.’

‘There is a very real risk that many people who rely on their car for essential journeys will be priced off the road.’

He also added that the impact of the lockdown could cause further issue with clean air zones: ‘With the whole country back in lockdown, this is likely to have an even bigger impact than previously thought as more people will be trying to avoid public transport by using private cars.’

It seems that other motorists share this concern and have found already found a loophole for potentially outsmarting the scheme to avoid charges.

After green number plates for electric vehicles went on sale late last year, it has since surfaced that some organisations have allowed motorists to purchase these without being required to show any form of documentation to confirm their eligibility.

Head of roads policy at the AA has dubbed the illegal scheme to be ‘very worrying’ and suggested that there may be a ‘Wild West situation on our hands’ if the scheme was allowed to continue.

A DVLA spokesperson reminded motorists: ‘It is illegal for motorists to incorrectly display a number plate and those breaking the law could be fined up to £1000.’

While the loophole is in the process of being shut down and cannot be condoned, it does go to show the extent of the pressure and concern motorists are feeling about the upcoming clean air zone charges and the petrol and diesel ban of 2025.

Would you be happy to pay to enter a clean air zone or do you think clean air zone charges are too high? Do you think the government’s ‘green’ plan is unrealistic for the majority of motorists?

Tell us in the comments.

£93 million makeover for local roads, but is it enough?

Feb 2, 2021

What are the roads like in your area? Plagued by potholes? Congested and unsafe? Well, that could be about to change as transport secretary, Grant Shapps, gives the go-ahead for a £93 million makeover for local roads in some areas.

His pledge to ‘make journeys safer and more reliable for motorists’ will begin in Yorkshire, Hampshire and the West Midlands and will involve the addition of new routes to avoid dangerous landslips, expanded islands and structural improvements to bridges.

While this may be a positive step forwards for Britain’s roads, some organisations feel that it may be too little too late.

The roads of the nation ‘desperately need more investment filtering down to local levels as the more local you go, the worse the picture is,’ says the AA in response to the news.

The AA has also warned that there is a severe amount of underestimation on the government’s part when it comes to the public’s view on roads. Their latest poll revealed that 83% of motorists ranked the quality of routes as a top priority.

Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for the AA, warned of the urgency of the situation as local road surfaces continue to deteriorate in many areas across England, with motorists picking up on their ‘state of disrepair’ and calling for imminent improvements to protect themselves and their vehicles.

Mr Cousens explained that: ‘a third (32 per cent) of drivers ranked trunk road surfaces as ‘good’, whereas one in five (19 per cent) felt they could say the same for main roads and fewer still for residential streets (15 per cent),’

He went onto suggest that ‘It’s not just the moon-like craters on our roads that need fixing, but worn-away markings too.’

‘Just one fifth (20 per cent) said road marking on local roads were ‘good’, as opposed to nearly two fifths that said markings were good on trunk roads (37 per cent).’

Mr Cousens concluded by saying: ‘If we are going to ‘build back better’ (in reference to the government’s post-Covid pledge to improve transport) then improvements need to reach every street and avenue.’

Although the ongoing issues on local roads are beginning to be addressed, it is clear that many expert organisations do not think enough is being done to restore our roads.

[Image Source: Shutterstock, Feb 2021]

What could local road improvements mean for your area?

In North Yorkshire, a brand-new carriageway will be constructed to help motorists avoid dangerous and inconvenient landslips that have been an issue on the A59 for many years. Frequent road closures and unsafe conditions have boosted this project to the top of the priority list and will cost the government £56 million in total.

Meanwhile, in Birmingham, the Birchley Island roundabout, which is notorious for causing high levels of congestion, will be given a £24 million expansion to increase the number of lanes in an attempt to reduce traffic build-up.

Finally, Hampshire locals can expect structural improvements to the Redbridge Causeway bridges on which concerns have been raised about stability and damage to concrete. These improvements will cost the government £13 million.

With only £93 million in the fund to begin with, it seems that these three improvements will eat into the majority of it, leaving the rest of the country wondering when and how their local roads will be improved.

Despite concerns over funding, Grant Shapps reassures motorists and experts alike that this is a positive step forwards in the restoration of Britain’s roads. He said: ‘I am delighted to announce this significant funding package which will ensure millions of people can continue to travel easily and safely.’

‘It’s further proof of this government delivering on its promise to level up the country – putting transport at the heart of our efforts to build back better from Covid-19.’

In referring to the projects taking place within the £93 million budget, he said that their main aim is to ‘help people access work and education, as well as ensuring vital connectivity for local businesses.’

Steve Barclay, chief secretary to the Treasury, concludes by saying: ‘Upgrading the country’s roads doesn’t just help drivers – it’ll mean more jobs, safer journeys and more reliable access to things like education and work.’

Is this £93 million makeover for local roads a step in the right direction? Or should more funding be made available to ensure more areas benefit from local road improvements?

Tell us in the comments.

Pandemic petrol prices reach peak of £1.20-a-litre

Feb 2, 2021

Back in March 2020, during the first national lockdown, petrol prices reached lows of just 106.48p per litre. A decline in demand, oversupply and up to 80% less traffic on the roads was the cause, with motorists told to stay home and reduce travel to short, essential journeys only.

Now, ten months on, our situation remains mostly unchanged. A third national lockdown has meant restrictions are still in place and motorists have once again had their journeys capped. One thing that has changed during this lockdown, however, is the price of petrol.

Reaching heights of 120.1p-a-litre in some areas of England, petrol prices are now above what they were even before the pandemic began and are still increasing. In fact, as of this week, the cost of petrol is 5p more expensive than it was a month ago.

This is Money found that on average, motorists are currently paying £3 more than previous lockdown prices to fill up the average family-sized car with a 55-litre tank.

While journeys and traffic levels may be reduced, motorists are still having to make multiple short, essential journeys weekly and may still be travelling to and from essential jobs, meaning that they will most definitely be feeling the sting of these hiked-up prices.

AA spokesman, Luke Bosdet, acknowledged the situation motorists in lockdown are facing: ‘Many drivers in lockdown are using their cars for short trips, such as to the supermarket, and are filling up much less often than usual.’

‘If this week they have gone to the fuel station for the first time since December, they will have seen a 4p to 5p-a-litre leap in petrol and diesel prices.

‘This will be a nasty surprise and compound their lockdown frustrations.’

Currently, petrol prices in London and the South East are topping the scales at 120.32p and 120.76p-a-litre respectively, while diesel prices I similar areas are reaching highs of up to 123.71p.

Research also shows that not only are petrol prices on the rise in areas all across England, but they may also differ between forecourts. In some areas prices differed by up to 10p at a range of forecourts in the same place. This has meant that motorists are being forced to do their research before filling up in order to avoid paying more than they need to for their fuel.

But what is it that has caused this increase? And is the upward trend set to continue?

[Image Source: Shutterstock, Feb 2021]

What is causing the peak in prices?

One factor that could be to blame for the significant rise in petrol prices during this third lockdown is the cost of oil. The AA pointed out that, over the last month, the price of oil has risen by $5 to $6-a-barrell, clearly having a direct impact on the prices set for petrol.

It has also been suggested that supermarkets have played a part in the rise in pandemic petrol prices, with some organisations accusing them of taking advantage of the lockdown.

The AA suggests that a $2 increase in the price of oil is usually matched by a 1p-a-litre rise in the price of petrol. If this is the case, some retailers appear to be adding a small amount more to their prices. The AA has dubbed this a ‘lockdown bonus’ for fuel sellers.

With supermarkets making the most of this ‘lockdown bonus’, non-supermarket retailers have also been forced to up their prices to keep up with the competition, meaning that motorists are paying extra for their petrol, no matter where they get it from.

The Petrol Retailers Association chairman, Brian Madderson, explains that: ‘Petrol stations are rightly regarded as ‘essential’ businesses by the government yet the independent sector struggles for financial sustainability as fuel volumes plummet again during this latest lockdown.’

He suggested that non-supermarket retailers have struggled during this time, and have been forced to make every effort to keep their services running: ‘Unlike the big supermarkets buoyed by massive increases to grocery sales, independents have to hold onto every penny of margin to avoid cutting staff and reducing service levels in a tight market.’

As the pandemic continues, it is uncertain as to whether the upward trend in petrol prices will continue, but in the meantime, it is motorists already struggling with the economic hardships of a global pandemic who will suffer the consequences.

Do you think the rise in petrol prices during this stage of the pandemic is justified? Were you surprised at the price of petrol last time you filled up?

Tell us in the comments.

Smart motorways centre of attention again as death-preventing safety measures fast-tracked

Jan 27, 2021

Smart motorways have long been a point of controversy since being introduced over a decade ago, but this week they have once again forced back into the spotlight after a coroner ruled that they present an ‘ongoing risk of future deaths.’

This comes after the deaths of two drivers on the M1 were deemed to be caused by the lack of safety measures on smart motorways. When delivering a verdict of unlawful killing, a coroner ruled that ‘the lack of a hard shoulder contributed to the deaths of two M1 drivers.’

It is this ruling that has kick-started the discussion on whether or not the safety measures already in place are doing enough to protect motorists.

Currently, emergency laybys or refuge areas are 1.5 miles apart despite calls from motoring groups to have them more frequently spaced. To add to this, only 83.6 miles of motorway has been installed with potentially life-saving technology so far.

As a result, crisis talks with Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, are now taking place, confirms a Department for Transport spokesperson: ‘In light of the findings from the coroner, the Transport Secretary has called an urgent meeting with Highways England.’

An 18-point blueprint plan was demanded by Roads Minister, Baroness Vere, this weekend in the hope of improving driver safety as quickly and as efficiently as possible. It is thought that the meeting will have covered plans on how to ramp up the rollout of preventative safety measures across all 500 miles of smart motorways in the UK.

However, some experts believe that this may be too little, too late. Reports reveal that concerns were, in fact, raised back in 2011 about the safety of smart motorways by several Department of Transport (DfT) lawyers.

In information revealed by the Daily Mail, DfT lawyer, Farah Japanwalla – during a 2011 meeting about smart motorways – questioned whether ‘corporate manslaughter had been considered as part of the design and the potential liability of the agency if a road user was killed due to the operation of the network.’

Unfortunately, the concern was dismissed as a computer simulator used to test driver behaviour confirmed that it would be safe to proceed.

In light of the recent deaths caused by smart motorways, however, MP Karl McCartney, a member of the Commons’ Transport Committee admitted: ‘It seems we were right to suspect the policy [of smart motorways] was ill-thought-out and unsafe.’

AA President, Edmund King, also commented: ‘Questions were asked by government lawyers ten years ago when the plans to remove the hard shoulder were discussed.’

‘Had our calls for more emergency laybys been listened to a decade ago, we may not be in this position.’

While recognising an ongoing issue with smart motorways is a positive move forward, it leaves motorists questioning whether recent tragedies might have been avoided if concerns from a decade ago had been taken seriously. It also poses the question: who is to blame?

[Image Source: Shutterstock, Jan 2021]

What new safety measures can we expect to see?

Highways England has reassured motorists that they can expect to see new smart motorway safety measures being rolled out as soon as possible: ‘We are determined to do all we can to make our roads as safe as possible and are already addressing many of the points raised by the coroner.’ But what might these measures entail?

The new safety technology to be installed on all smart motorways will be the continuation of a system that has already been in use on over 37 miles.

It takes the form of a radar system that is able to rapidly detect the location of broken-down vehicles on smart motorways. Within 20 seconds, it will identify a stationary vehicle, allowing other preventative measures to be swiftly put into place to protect the driver of the vehicle and other motorway users.

On smart motorways where this technology has yet to be installed, stationary vehicles’ identification relies on CCTV. This is a much slower process and leaves broken-down vehicles trapped in live traffic lanes without an escape route.

While plans are in place to roll this technology out over all 500 miles of smart motorway by 2023, it still leaves motorists wondering how many more fatal accidents may occur between now and then?

Do you think it should have taken this long to install better safety measures on smart motorways? Are you fearful of using them because of the risks they pose?

Tell us in the comments.

Minor traffic offence fines given government go-ahead

Jan 27, 2021

In London, up to one million minor traffic offence fines are handed out each year by local authorities. Now, MPs have confirmed that the extra powers enabling London authorities to do this will be extended over the rest of the country in the coming months.

This means that in addition to fines for offences like speeding and parking, motorists will now be at risk of being fined for smaller contraventions like driving in cycle lanes, failing to follow one-way systems, failing to adhere to no-entry signs, entering yellow-box junctions and failing to give priority to oncoming traffic.

It is thought that motorists will be caught out by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and could have to pay fines of anywhere between £70 and £130.

With recent data also revealing just how much local councils pocket in parking fines per year, it is not surprising that the announcement for more fining has been met with some contempt.

Nicholas Lyes, head of road policy, revealed some motorists’ concerns to This is Money, saying: ‘Most motorists think local authorities will rush to install cameras as a way to generate extra revenue.’

He also stated that: ‘Two out of five drivers we spoke to fear road layouts and signage will be made deliberately confusing to increase the number of penalties issues.’

Despite complaints, however, it appears that the decision is set in stone as the RAC reported that this shift in legal powers would be rolled out across the country within the year.

Department for Transport also recently discussed the practicalities of bringing forward the legislative proposal to enable local authorities to issue fines for minor traffic offences. The one saving grace for concerned motorists being that it could be some time before the new laws are in place.

Transport Minister, Rachel Maclean, was asked in the House of Commons about how quickly these plans may come into force so that a clear timeline could be established. She stated that it would be ‘some months’ before local authorities were given the final go-ahead:

‘The moving traffic enforcement powers under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 require a set of statutory instruments to be made covering enforcement, level of penalties, financial provisions, approved devices, adjudication and representation and appeals.’

‘This will take several months to bring into force, after which those local authorities with civil parking enforcement powers can apply for a designation order for moving traffic enforcement.’

In an attempt to quell concerns from motorists, she also reassured that: ‘Statutory guidance is being developed for local authorities on how to use the powers, including publishing their introduction in advance, to ensure that enforcement is carried out fairly.’

[Image Source: Shutterstock, Jan 2021]

How much of an impact will minor traffic fines have?

London and Cardiff are already subject to minor traffic offence fines, and motorists in both cities have found that at times, the offences are incredibly difficult to avoid. Some even described them as sneaky or traps.

This was a particular issue with yellow box junctions, with the RAC revealing that up to 80% of drivers found driving smoothly through yellow boxes to be challenging. At the same time, a third stated that they had become stuck in a yellow box due to slow responses from other road users. This begs the question, should motorists be held accountable for offences out of their control?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Motorists will not be able to dispute these fines based on the actions of other road users and will have to accept the charge. They will, however, be spared points on their licence.

The RAC also revealed that in the space of a year in London and Cardiff, over £30 million had been amassed from yellow box junction fines alone. A staggeringly high number for such a minor offence and one that is only adding to the contempt already displayed by worried motorists across the country.

Again, Nicholas Lyes is aware of these concerns and has put forward a solution, suggesting: ‘Local authorities should consider sending first offenders a warning letter – and only issue a penalty if they repeat the offence later on.’

While it is reassuring to know that concerns are being heard, it does not remove the inevitable impact that this will have on drivers everywhere.

Do you think minor offence fines are yet another ploy to feed cash-hungry councils? Or are you pleased that efforts are being made to improve the way we behave on our roads?

Tell us in the comments.

Councils pocket up to £10.6 million in parking fines per year

Jan 19, 2021

It has recently been revealed that local councils up and down the UK are frequently pocketing vast amounts of revenue from parking fines.

While the average council issued more than £850,000 worth of parking fines in under a year, some busier London boroughs brought in almost ten times that with numbers reaching £10.6 million.

These statistics have been drawn from a study conducted by This is Money, carried out to establish which councils were raking in the most revenue from parking fines during the period from August 2019 to July 2020.

During this period, it was discovered on average that 63 parking fines were being handed out per day by most councils. These drivers were charged with anywhere between £37 and £41.

Add to this the cost of parking charges accumulated during the same period and the total brought in by councils reaches £996 million. That equates to £2.7 million a day, or £32 per second. It was also revealed that some councils struggling for cash had raised parking prices by up to 230 per cent, which has only served to boost the already staggering numbers further.

A separate study, conducted in 2015, reinforces the dramatic increase in parking fine revenue over the last five years. In the same period between 2015 and 2016, numbers only reached £756 million.

At the time, this number was described by Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, to be ‘eye-wateringly large’ but also an inevitable result of growing competition for parking spaces in towns and cities.

He also added in defence of parking fine fees that ‘parking charges are one of the tools councils use to keep traffic moving whilst also allowing people reasonable and affordable access to high street shops and other facilities.’

Despite these worryingly high numbers from five years ago, a representative of the Local Government Association at the time insisted that ‘councils did not make a profit from parking’ but that ‘local authorities must strike a balance when setting charges to ensure there are parking spaces available and traffic is not held up.’

‘We’ve been clear that councils shouldn’t use parking as a cash cow,’ a spokesperson added, but with numbers continuing to rise, drivers have been left questioning the reasoning behind the increase.

In relation to this most recent study, Dan Huston, head of motoring at Compare the Market admitted that, despite previous warnings ‘parking fine revenues are a cash cow for many local authorities’ and that ‘up and down the country drivers are regularly being caught out by tight parking restrictions.’

He finished with a warning to UK drivers to stay vigilant: ‘we would encourage drivers to take extra care and attention when parking up their car to ensure they avoid a parking fine.’

[Image Source: Shutterstock, Jan 2021]

Parking fines in your area

London based local councils brought in by far the most revenue from parking fines, with key locations named as city centres and high streets. These areas also accounted for some of the most elevated parking fine charge fees, with the London Borough of Haringey demanding a colossal £72.04 from caught out drivers.

While the London Borough of Newham topped the charts for the most considerable amount of parking fine revenue with £10.6 million, other local authorities outside of London weren’t far behind.

The City of Glasgow came in at £5.4 million, with over 100,000 fines issued, followed by Birmingham City Council at £3.9 million with a similar number of fines issued but with a slightly lower charge than the City of Glasgow.

Also making the top ten list outside of London were: Brighton and Hove City Council, Liverpool City Council, East Sussex Council, Newcastle upon Tyne City Council, Medway Council, Bournemouth Borough Council, Cardiff Council and Oxfordshire County Council.

Every single local authority on the top 20 list, London boroughs included, brought in at least £1.5 million in parking revenues during the aforementioned time period.

Upon seeing these figures, one motorist commented that local authorities are ‘killing towns and villages’ with ramped up parking fine fees, while another defended councils, reinforcing the idea that ‘the council doesn’t issue fines if there isn’t any rule-breaking – why do motorists think they can park anywhere they want?’

Did your area make the Top 20 list? Do you think parking fine rules are unfair or justified?

Tell us in the comments.

Councils make switch to plug-in cars difficult with no plans to install on-street chargers

Jan 19, 2021

Despite record numbers of plug-in cars registered over the last year, research shows that only 9,300 on-street electric car chargers are set to be installed between now and 2025.

The move towards electric vehicles is accelerating as the new petrol and diesel model ban looms closer. Still, research shows that many local councils are failing to put plans in place to accommodate this shift by installing on-street chargers; some areas have no plans whatsoever to install any in the next five years. This is despite the £10 million government funding made available to do so.

In 2020, 175,082 plug-in models were registered in the UK, but current plans for installing on-street chargers would mean that there would be only one new on-street charger installation per 19 electric and hybrid models.

Experts have warned that without action, this lack of intent from local councils could prove to be a ‘huge bottle-neck’ to plug-in vehicles in the coming years.

The switch to electric vehicles by 2030 has already been dubbed as too ambitious, and motorists up and down the country have raised concerns about its practicalities. It seems that this new information has severed to cast further doubt.

A Centrica study which polled 2,000 UK drivers revealed that ‘half of the drivers who are not considering buying an electric vehicle blamed the lack of access to on-street or public charging points in their area.’

While motorists with access to a garage or driveway may not be impacted by lack of on-street chargers, it is motorists who rely on on-street parking who will be disadvantaged.

In fact, more than three-quarters of motorists in the same survey said that ‘the investment into more on-street charging points in urban areas would encourage more drivers without a driveway to go electric’ while a further three-quarters felt that the same could be said for rural areas.

Amanda Stretton, sustainable transport editor at Centrica, shares in the concern of motorists, saying: ‘The latest figures released today demonstrate the need for all UK councils to play their part in helping to achieve the 2030 ban. With over half of drivers attributing lack of charges as the main reason preventing them from purchasing an EV, it’s unfair that those without a driveway risk getting left behind.’

She also admitted that: ‘charging infrastructure and energy systems will need to be upgraded to cope with the demand and support drivers.’ Without these efforts, experts are concerned that this will serve as yet another barrier to the 2030 petrol and diesel ban’s success.

Electric vehicles charging via on-street charging point

[Image Source: Shutterstock, Jan 2021]

Councils not entirely to blame

While councils who are slow to install on-street chargers make up part of the problem, experts also say that they are not entirely to blame: ‘We cannot put the onus on councils alone to create the infrastructure to support electric vehicles, it has to be a team effort’, says managing director of parking provider, RingGo, Peter O’Driscoll.

In another survey carried out by RingGo, Mr O’Driscoll confirmed that they had obtained similar results to Centrica: ‘we found over 30% of those open to switching to an electric car still feel there needs to be greater availability of charging facilities to fully commit.’

He reinforced the need to educate motorists and councils alike on the benefits of electric vehicles in a plight to encourage them to take action: ‘There needs to be an education about not only the capabilities of electric vehicles – the distance they can travel, how often they need to be charged and the cost-saving associated – but also the tools available to find charging points across the country.’

Centrica added that in their endeavour to boost installations, they ‘are working with businesses to install smart charging systems which help automate charging at times which does not put pressure on the grid. This helps regulate demand and ensures customers get the best deal on electric prices.’

With 126 councils across the UK having no plans to install any on-street chargers before 2025, it seems that other organisations like Centrica and RingGo are being left to prepare the country for the big switch by themselves.

Unless something changes, experts warn, the ‘serious lack of investment’ in local infrastructure will ‘ultimately strangle ministers’ efforts to convince drivers to switch to electric cars ahead of the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles.

Do you think councils are doing enough to provide on-street chargers? Have you been convinced to make the electric switch?

Tell us in the comments.

Learner drivers lose £1.1 million in lockdown driving test suspensions

Jan 13, 2021

This month, petitions have been launched to call on the government to extend theory test certificates after research revealed almost 50,000 learner drivers were left £1.1 million out-of-pocket last year due to driving test suspensions.

For the majority of 2020, both practical and theory driving tests were suspended to accommodate the new restrictions brought about by pandemic lockdowns. It was found that almost 50,000 theory test certificates expired last year; a theory test costs £23 to sit, meaning that learners have seen £1.1 million worth of passed theory tests go to waste.

As we are now in the midst of another national lockdown, assumed to last throughout February and beyond, it stands that learner drivers could be set to lose another £320,000 due to 13,944 more tests expiring.

Despite pleas from driving instructors, other industry insiders and learners themselves, the government has refused to extend theory test certificates, despite practical tests not being able to go ahead.

While organisations are acknowledging the difficulties and disappointment faced by learner drivers, Marmalade manager, Crispin Moger, said that although he doesn’t ‘doubt that there will have been many learner drivers that would have planned to take their test during the time periods affected by multiple UK lockdowns and will now have lost through no fault of their own,’ unfortunately ‘learners whose certificates have expired will need to take the test and pass it again before the can take their practical driving test adding yet more time to their wait, adding to the backlog we are already expected to see in 2021.’

Concerns have also been raised not just about the cost to learner drivers, but the extent to which the suspension of driving tests is holding back the next generation of drivers. Moger further comments on this, saying ‘for some, this is just another roadblock to gaining freedom and will be a hindrance to many where a driving test pass was at the centre of their plans.’

While the rules may seem set in stone and unlikely to change, the most recent petition has over 30,000 signatures in favour of demanding a 12-month theory certificate extension.

Supporters feel that this extension would prevent additional costs of resitting tests and ease the backlog of learners clamouring to sit their practical assessments at the earliest available date. There are concerns that tests centres will be swamped when they re-open, further delaying tests for so many.

[Image Source: Shutterstock, Jan 21]

Government resists pressure to extend theory certificates

Secretary of the Department for Transport, Rachel Maclean, has responded to test extension petitions by defending the parliamentary decision not to do so: ‘The two-year validity period of the theory test certificate is set in legislation, and the Government has taken the decision not to lay further legislation to extend it.

She went on to explain the reasoning behind the decision, stating: ‘The primary reason is that the two-year validity is in place to ensure that a candidate’s theoretical knowledge and hazard perception skills are up to date the critical point they drive on their own for the first time. Extending the validity would provide less reassurance that this is the case.’

She finished by reassuring those that had the opportunity to re-pass a theory test during brief breaks in national lockdowns by saying: ‘those whose certificate previously expired and have since passed the theory test will now have a further two years in which to pass the practical test.’

With the pandemic and lockdowns alike lasting far longer than expected, time is ticking again for learners in this situation and driving instructors unhappy with the government decision.

Ian McIntosh, chief executive of RED Driving School, said he felt that the decision was a ‘huge injustice to learners’ and noted that ‘the theory test is expensive and difficult to pass, and learners cannot book a practical test without a valid theory test pass certificate, meaning thousands of learners will have to wait even longer to obtain their licences.’

He and others in the profession ‘believe all students who passed their theory tests in April 2018 onwards should be allowed to take a practical test when the test centres re-open, meaning thousands of learners will have to wait even longer to obtain driving licenses.’

McIntosh concludes by saying that ‘the government’s failure to extend the theory test pass certificate is a needless bureaucratic bottleneck that could hinder the nation’s Covid bounce back, particularly if learners cannot obtain licences for work purposes.’

Do you think learners should be afforded an extension? Or is the government decision justifiable?

Tell us in the comments.

Click here for the full dataset

Pothole repair time accelerated by 700% in development of new JCB machine

Jan 13, 2021

Potholes are a long-standing problem on British roads, accounting for countless damages to vehicles and complaints to local authorities. Part of the issue comes from the lack of resources and funding available to quickly and effectively fill potholes.

However, a new machine developed by JCB – dubbed the PotholePro – is set to accelerate repair rates by up to 700% in an effort to restore Britain’s roads.

The PotholePro is able to do the job that usually requires three machines, drastically reducing emissions and cost. With a price tag of £165,000 or £600 per week to rent, it offers a much more affordable option for local authorities and road operators and opens up more repair opportunities.

JCB says that this machine is the most efficient of its type, with development leader and JCB chairman, Lord Bamford, stating that: ‘JCB’s solution is simple and cost-effective and fixes potholes permanently first time. Once the machine has done its job, all the contractor needs to do is just add tar.’

The machine has already been in use in Stoke-on-Trent, and the city council has seen positive results. Initial testing revealed that the machine could complete 51 road repair jobs in just 20 days, a task that would typically have taken up to six operatives 63 days to complete.

Councillor Daniel Jellyman was pleased with the result, saying: ‘Potholes are a nuisance to motorists up and down the country and we’ve worked closely with JCB to come up with a solution to what is a national problem. In a time when every penny and pound counts for local authorities, we’re delighted to be at the forefront of developing and trialling new technologies and ways of working, especially ones which could save residents money.’

The PotholePro uses cutting edge technology to combine a 600mm-wide planer – designed to create a level cut and ensure long-lasting results – with a sweeper and cropping tool, eliminating the need for additional machinery. Tests have already indicated that the JCB PotholePro is capable of completing a pothole repair in less than eight minutes – the equivalent of fixing 700 potholes a month.

[Image Source: Shutterstock , Jan 21]

The problem with potholes

The development of the PotholePro comes off the back of a particularly bad year for pothole complaints, with reports to local authorities topping 210,000 in some areas during 2020, despite a decrease in general traffic due to lockdown.

In a study conducted by RAC and published in December 2020, 52% of surveyed drivers said that road conditions were worse than 12 months ago, while 38% stated that their biggest concern as a driver was the state of council-maintained roads. Between July and September 2020 alone, the RAC saw 1,900 call-outs for damaged shock absorbers, broken suspension springs and distorted wheels, likely to have been caused by potholes.

The issue was recognised in the government Autumn 2020 Spending Review, with Chancellor Rishi Sunak vowing to invest £1.6 billion to fix potholes in Britain in an attempt to ‘level-up’ uneven roads.

However, in response to the Chancellor’s statement, chair of the AIA Rick Green said: ‘While these spending commitments are welcome in these challenging times, we are aware that the sums outlined will not be enough to plug the existing multi-billion-pound backlog in road maintenance funding and so our ageing network will continue to decline.’

He went on to suggest that ‘what’s needed going forward is an additional investment of £1.5 billion a year for 10 years to improve the experience of all road users, support recovery an deliver a much-needed boost to the economy.’

It is hoped that JCB’s PotholePro will relieve some of the issues faced by local councils in their endeavour to fund the upkeep of their roads. AA President Edmund King OBE reinforced the importance of road repairs in saying: ‘The toll of pothole damage on cars is already breath-taking. However, as more people take up cycling due to avoiding public transport in the pandemic and if e-scooters are legalised, then sorting out poor road surfaces is more important than ever.’

He finished by praising JCB and their efforts to overcome the issue with potholes: ‘JCB has taken the initiative to fix these problems, and we’re excited to see its new PotholePro take to the streets.’

Are the roads in your local area littered with potholes? Are councils doing enough to protect our vehicles from pothole damage?

Tell us in the comments.

BMW sparks outrage with new privacy-breaching billboards set to target drivers

Jan 5, 2021

Concerns have been raised over a new BMW marketing initiative that requires ‘Vehicle Detection Technology’ to identify BMW cars on the road for highly-personalised targeted marketing.

The ‘Vehicle Detection Technology’ is said to ‘trigger highly personalised, real-time content when a handpicked vehicle type is directly in the sight of a roadside screen.’ The targeting criteria requires a BMW to be over 35 months old and, once one has been identified, the interactive billboards will ‘leap into action.’ The driver will then be shown targeted adverts for BMW’s extended warranties.

While the scheme seems to be nothing more than a smart marketing move on the surface, experts at Motoring Research are worried that it could be used to ‘name and shame drivers’ while social media users expressed concerns that it may breach privacy laws.

Despite concerns, the interactive billboards are set to go live in London, Birmingham, Newcastle and Manchester. The boards will be installed on major roads at traffic lights, in prime position to identify a relevant car that is stationary at a red light. Targeted marketing will then be displayed to the driver, warning of potentially expensive issues that are no longer covered.

The Daily Mail suggests that the adverts will also be used ‘despite the fact that many owners of older BMWs could already have an approved extended warranty, or similar products available from specialist providers such as MotorEasy or Warrantywise – or have separate savings to cover the cost of cars is required.’ The fact that the advertising relies on assumption seems to be yet another cause for concern.

Some reports suggested that the system may be able to recognise if an older BMW has an approved warranty or not, with Cars UK going as far as to say drivers this may make drivers feel as if they are being ‘stalked’ in their cars.

Motorists are concerned at having their private details flashed up in public places without their consent.

[Image source: Shutterstock, Jan 2021]

Will the scheme win-over concerned motorists?

In aiding understanding of this new scheme, a spokesperson for BMW explained that: ‘Vehicle Detection technology is a proprietary technology of Ocean Outdoor that uses a mixture of anonymised third-party data sources from the automotive industry to trigger content more relevant to the make or model of the vehicle that has stopped at the lights.’

In an attempt to reassure concerned experts and motorist, they said: ‘The Vehicle Detection Technology does not have access to any data, including warranty status.’

Steve Cann, insurance provide manager for BMW Financial Services, explained further to defend the reasoning behind the implementation of the new scheme. He said: ‘Our customers expect an elevated level of customer service and personalised digital marketing is just one way in which we can engage with them at this expected level.’

He claims that ‘tailored billboard messaging is a unique way of engaging with BMW owners outside of their homes that we hope will leave a memorable impression.’

Head of warranty at Allianz Partners UK also added that the initiative ‘brings together digital marketing expertise and product innovation and is an exciting opportunity to reach prospective customers on the move, during a time when physical interaction is restricted.’

Regardless of this reassurance, commentators took to the internet to express their dislike for the Big-Brother style scheme. One motorist commented on BMW’s ‘arrogance’ while another suggested that BMW had lost its ‘grasp on what the public wants and how they deserve to be treated.’

Another implied that this new marketing scheme might backfire, with the suggestion that it ‘implies BMWs are so unreliable that they necessitate a warranty.’

This latest move is also not the first time in recent months that BMW has caused outrage online. Last month, internet users claimed that it insulted its ‘best customers’ by using a term of ‘insult’ and ‘derision’ in response to a YouTube comment about their new flagship iX electric SUV. To add to this, these new concerns about breached privacy come not longer after 400,000 BMW owners were impacted by the July 2020 data breach, exposing personal BMW driver information.

However, in defence of this latest cause of anguish, BMW has frequently reiterated that their new marketing technology will not name the driver or display information about their vehicle – the signs will only show ads for approved BMW warranty products. It does seem, however, that this reassurance has done little to reduce the online backlash.

Clever marketing tactic or technology taken too far? Would highly-personalised targeted billboard ads sway you? Or does this Big-Brother style scheme make you uncomfortable?

Tell us in the comments.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »