As motorists, we get used to the ‘bust & boom’ nature of owning a car; hit with taxes, hit with taxes, and hit with taxes, with some light relief of “actually, you car driving people deserve a break”. Of course, the cycle usually follows a strict pattern – the timing of a general election.

Some candidates are telling us that they ‘vow to end rip-off NHS parking charges’, while others promise to end the blight that is potholes and poor roads. One in particular is mixing it up and offering to tackle both problems. To a degree.

But is it all pie in the sky thinking? A cheap trick to woo us?

Pothole repairs

The Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA), whose members are primarily responsible for filling in potholes, states that £9.79bn is needed over the next ten years to bring our roads up to scratch, and that typically, UK drivers need to spend around £4bn every year on getting their car fixed due to damage caused by potholes.

The problem is so bad, that 56% of motorists have said that their car has been damaged at least once, and 28% of drivers have had an accident or near miss because of a pothole, a further 15% have had a tyre blowout after being damaged by a pothole.

Clearly, a strategy for fixing potholes is much needed, but the very obvious question needing to be asked is where would the money come from? Further taxation? We already pay tax on top of tax in the form of fuel duty, and then of course we have VED and numerous other stealth taxes.

With £2bn of money being promised as part of the Government national infrastructure strategy, there may just be enough to scratch the surface (but not fix it).

For a simple representation of the problem, which is said to amount to a 33km depth hole, Confused.com has put together a simple animation of what that means, along with a handy guide on how to claim for pothole damage to your car.

NHS parking charges

Both of the primary candidates have promised to tackle excessive NHS parking charges, albeit in slightly different forms – one is offering a complete abolition of car parking charges, the other wants to offer free parking for certain groups – terminally ill, frequent visitors to the outpatients dept., NHS nightshift workers and the disabled ‘blue badge’ holders (169 NHS trusts charge blue badge holders for parking).

Depending on the source used, we know that patients, visitors and staff coughed up around £272m for car parking in NHS facilities in 2018, with £86m of that being paid by the NHS staff and workers, and £950,000 being made up of fines for parking offences.

While it’s acknowledged that the NHS trusts are responsible for setting their own parking fees, the issue is somewhat clouded by the fact that not all of the trusts receive all (or any) of the money. More often, the trust uses a third-party operator to run the parking, and of course costs very between operators, and for once, it doesn’t seem to follow the North / South divide.

Manchester’s University NHS foundation trust topped the bill for revenue generated – just over £6m being distributed almost equally between public and staff, and the University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire claimed second spot, with just under £6m – £5,992,849 (just £2m for the staff).

Some politicians are calling it a “tax on sickness”.

Cheap vote winners

Being a motorist during a run up to an election is about the only time that we can feel valued, or at least considered, rather than the devil incarnate for having the audacity to use a private vehicle (even more so if it’s fuelled by unleaded or diesel).

But these promises made to us are nothing short of cheap tactics to win a vote, and anyone that bases their decision purely on the points raised will be in for bitter disappointment when the votes are counted and the next incumbent sits. That’s not to say that it’s all fantasy, but just that I for one won’t be holding my breath.

It’s all very well promising untold fortunes for the benefit of the motorist, but the simple reality is that many local authorities are on the verge of financial collapse, and any ‘spare’ money has long been accounted for. Any extra monies promised will either leave a deficit somewhere else, or have to be raised from further taxation, and as it’s for the motorists benefit, you can be sure that it will be the motorist paying for it.

What are your thoughts on NHS parking charges? How should the government (whoever that may be) fund these extra initiatives? Would you pay an extra tax for better roads? Let us know in the comments.

A new EU regulation says that all new cars must have integrated breathalysers and speed-limiters by 2022. Existing models sold after 2024 must also have this updated safety technology. The British Government has confirmed the standards will apply in the United Kingdom, despite Brexit.

The landmark ruling, which the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) say may cut traffic collisions by 30% and save 25,000 lives across Europe over the next 15 years, received provisional approval in March but the European officials passed it early last week.

Tried and tested

In-car breathalysers are common in Australia and the United States, where they’re known more often as ‘alcohol interlock devices’, or ‘alcolocks’. Fitted onto the dashboard, the breathalyser needs a clean breath sample before the car’s engine will start. If the driver doesn’t pass the test, they must wait a certain amount of time before they can re-test. In-built chips can let the police know when a driver fails a test or if someone has tampered with the machine.

Some systems need the motorist to give repeat readings at random intervals, preventing drunk-drivers from getting a sober person to start the engine and/or drinking once the vehicle has started.

In a deliberate move, the EU won’t yet discuss the practicalities of how the breathalysers will work but, after doing my research into a common ignition interlock used in the US, I imagine it’ll work with a camera to check that the driver is the person taking the test whereby the camera takes an automatic snapshot of the motorist whenever they give their required sample.

Aside from breathalysers, the recent approval includes several new mandatory safety features including ‘Intelligent Speed Assistance’ (ISA) software, which stops drivers from going above speed limits, slowing speeding vehicles, and another feature that detects when you’re falling asleep, drifting over lanes, or losing concentration.

The speed-limiter software uses GPS data and speed limits from local traffic cameras, displaying the limits on your car’s dashboard.

If you go above the limit, the system reduces your car’s speed and, although you can override the system by pressing harder on the accelerator, if you continue to speed your car will sound an alert, like a seatbelt alarm.

The ETSC has suggested motorists should be able to deactivate ISA software. While speed-limiting equipment seems like something from ‘1984’, it could also help reduce road casualties, so shouldn’t we take advantage of all technological safety developments?

Drive like your life depends on it

People met the ruling, that the European Parliament says will save ‘thousands of lives’ and help motorists avoid speeding tickets, with a mixed response.

The road safety charity Brake describes the new regulation as the ‘biggest leap forward for road safety this century’ and Joshua Harris, Director of Campaigns at Brake, said:

‘Drink-driving and speeding are a scourge on our roads and the cause of devastating crashes every day.

Mr Harris added it was ‘fantastic to hear that alcohol interlock compatibility and speed-limiting technology will soon be mandatory.’

Despite our government agreeing to mirror EU road safety rules, it’s up to them to decide on how we use in-car breathalysers.

Neil Greig, Director of Policy and Research at IAM RoadSmart, says it’s unlikely the vast majority of the law-abiding public will ever use them to start their car, which may mean the only people who must use breathalysers to start their engines are motorists convicted of drink-driving, returning to the road after a driving ban.

Edmund King, President of the AA, said that ISA can help motorists from always checking their speedometers because even when people are religious about sticking to the speed limit, they still face the threat of ‘smartphone zombies and other unwary road users stepping out in front of them or drunk or distracted drivers crashing into them.’

King said, while technology plays a part, motorists shouldn’t only rely on computers and cameras to drive their cars for them and, until vehicles come with complete self-driving capabilities, people must keep their eyes on the road and their hands on the wheel.

He said: ‘Features such as lane-keep assistance, autonomous emergency braking, and driver-drowsiness warning systems have the potential to have a very positive effect on the number of accidents.’

The AA says something must exist to stop drink-drivers from buying or driving vehicles without fitted breathalysers.

Save your breath

Whichever of the new safety features we discuss, let’s not forget, we the consumer pay the extra to cover the cost of the advanced technology and its maintenance.

Regarding the breathalysers, many unanswered questions remain such as, how the machines cope with false readings from people using cough medicine or mouthwash, and whether drivers need to produce a 0% alcohol reading.

Will the machine register the readings of motorists with poor lung health? Will the regulation extend to motorcyclists, cyclists? Could the technology fail, leaving people stranded, unable to start their vehicles? Will we soon see an in-car system to test for drugs?

Will the safety features help police fight other crimes by reducing their traffic offences workload or will the government reduce officer numbers still further?

Brits might agree with making those convicted of drink-driving use an in-car breathalyser, but for every driver? Should we now presume guilt in all motorists?

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying a drink in moderation, but we’re the ones responsible for our actions, so, if you intend to drink, make sure you don’t drive over the legal alcohol limit. Arrange a designated driver or use a taxi or a ride-share service (like Uber).

If you space out your drinks or alternate between alcoholic and soft drinks, you give your liver a better chance of breaking down the alcohol in your system, preventing high blood alcohol levels.

So, will in-car breathalysers turn our ‘nation of drinkers’ into one of pedestrians? At least it would reduce harmful emissions…

What’s your view on mandatory breathalysers and speed limiters? Are they a good thing? Share your opinions in the comments.

“All the Conservatives can offer is green number plates” – Labour spokesman, discussing radical new plans to usher in an ‘electric car revolution’.

Of course, both major political parties are bandying around key words and phrases, all designed to pique your interest and win your vote: “We will provide interest free loans for 2.5 million people to upgrade their vehicles, and introduce a scrappage scheme for old cars” sounds like a great idea, and anything that makes ownership of a state-of-the-art electric vehicle more accessible should be applauded.

Should be applauded.

Net zero

The United Kingdom has signed up to be ‘net zero’ by 2050, which effectively means removing as many emissions from the environment, as we produce. As part of the 2050 strategy, the government are looking to implement numerous regulations, schemes and processes to help that along, and of course, transportation is chief among those targets.

Limiting and reducing mileage driven is a prime source to aiding that goal, but to achieve this, it’s thought that a minimum of a 20% reduction in mileage is needed, and that figure rises to around 60% under Labour’s expert briefing report, thanks to trying to hit that target by 2030.

The Conservative Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, is clear as to what this means for the motorist: “Corbyn is coming for your car and will exhume the last Labour Government’s war on the motorist.”

Kickstarting the revolution

“We will provide interest free loans for 2.5 million people to upgrade their vehicles, introduce a scrappage scheme for old cars, protect the 186,000 workers in the automotive sector that has been under siege from Tory mismanagement of the economy, kickstart a mammoth rollout of the UK’s electric vehicle charging network and set up community car sharing clubs so that everyone can benefit.”

It’s clear from the above statement that Labour are offering more than just coloured number plates, and there is huge potential to make this work, but just as likely is the potential to get things wrong; warnings of a ‘massive barrage of taxes and increases in road pricing’ follow on from Labour’s own statement of ‘demand management’ to force a ‘large and rapid’ drop in road use.

To those of you thinking that this is politically biased, I’ll point out that under the Conservatives, grants and schemes to aid the purchase of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure have been slashed, that their alternative is little more than a box-ticking gimmick, designed to give the impression of pushing the green agenda.

Apolitical thinking

Now more than ever, we need bipartisan or independent policies to create a sustainable, useable and manageable policy for future transportation and road use. Pushing electric vehicles to the fore will help drive demand and technology innovation, but it can’t be at the cost of huge price hikes in fuel duty or VED.

The technology behind electric vehicles and semi-autonomous driving is revolutionising the industry, perhaps it’s time for the authorities to take the same attitude and look toward making radical changes to the production costs, purchase price and infrastructure to help enable a wider uptake of these vehicles? Or is the guarantee of easy revenue, cheap votes and cheaper point scoring more important?

It’s clear that societal attitudes are changing – even the most ardent lover of internal combustion is coming round to the benefit of electric vehicles, both in terms of the environment, and their pocket, but forcing them through financial measures to choose electric over internal combustion just isn’t feasible, nor is it ‘for the many not the few’.

Offering low-rate VED on new electric vehicles is a start, but that’s a very small step toward offering real, actual help to purchase a vehicle, and until that happens, the majority of the population that live hand-to-mouth will never make the decision to swap to electric, and that’s before we look at the complex problem of actually being able to charge the vehicle.

If the government (any government) are serious about pushing the switch to electric vehicles, they need to offer more than green number plates, a 60% reduction in mileage (through taxation), and an increase in fuel duty to force the change.

‘Now is the winter of our discontent’ seems perfectly apt as we face a winter of politicking, sorting the wheat from the chaff, and trying to decide just who to place our money on for the future of our motoring, but one thing is for sure – the motorcar as we know it is firmly in the crosshairs.

What’s your solution to ‘Net Zero 2050’? Should the decisions & choices be removed from the political arena? Or are we just needing to get on with it … they’re all terrible? Let us know in the comments.

Private car registrations are big business – in 2017 alone, the market generated over £110m in revenue, with an estimate of around £1.8bn being made since 1989. Everybody who’s somebody wants a private registration, or so it seems.

Personally, there’s little that annoys me more than bad private registrations; the ones that need a huge dose of imagination to make work, the cheap and tacky ones that need extra number plate screws, insulation tape or ‘fudging’ to even be slightly coherent.

Even just the ones that are standard, yet the owner tries convincing you (or perhaps, himself) that it’s a private plate … BT07 YJA becomes “Brian’s Terrific 7 year old Yellow Jersey’d Arachnid or some such nonsense.

Brexit plates

Whether it’s your initials, showing the support of your favourite sporting team or hero, or just disguising the age of your vehicle, there is a private registration for nearly everything, and anything. And now that we’re facing the impending doom or elation (your choice) of leaving the EU, you can also tell the world about that.

A Brexit supporter may like EU20 BRX, EU20 OUT or even EU20 FAN, whereas staunch Remainers could pick from EU20 GON, EU20 SAD, or perhaps one that sums up the whole debacle (the last 3+ years) nicely – EU20 POO. Currently, these are all genuine registrations being marketed by a specialist company, but it’s likely that the DVLA won’t allow ‘POO’ to reach the open market.

New car, old plate

For those of you that aren’t familiar with the regulations, but absolutely must have a new Brexit plate, you should know that you can’t fit a new registration to an older vehicle – making it look newer, but you can go the other way; an older style or format to a newer car. So if you simply must have EU20 BYE fitted to your vehicle, it will need to be brand new at the March registrations.

With that said, it’s entirely possible to still buy the registration, and have the ownership rights on a Certificate of Entitlement, which lasts for ten years, you just won’t be able to display it until you have a vehicle to match. It’s also worth pointing out that the ‘20’ year marker will change to 70 for the September issue, so time is limited.

Lose that reg

I mentioned earlier that you often see private registration numbers that have to be fudged in some way to make them work, whether that’s tightening up the spacing, changing the font, adding bits of black electrical insulation tape to change a letter or two (that’s surprisingly common), but for me, that just devalues the whole thing.

It’s also worth pointing out that the authorities take a very dim view of it also; just because you’ve purchased the right to the VRN, they can remove that right for persistent and repeat offenders who choose to alter any element of the plate, or display in a different format or style that isn’t standard.

(Although of course, that would mean that you’ve got to encounter a real, live human police officer at least twice).

Record breaking investment

Purchasing a private registration doesn’t have to be all about shouting from the rooftops that you’re successful, or a lover of Aston Villa, or even perhaps that you’re a Handyman. Some VRNs add a much needed detail to a car – the most expensive private plate sold in the UK was 25 O, which was purchased for a Ferrari 250 GTO SWB, selling for £518,000.

A number of well-known equity investors (such as Duncan Bannatyne and James Caan) invest in cherished registrations as an easy way to top-up their portfolios, and if you choose correctly, you can usually make a better return than leaving the money idle, all while still being able to appreciate and use the ‘asset’ – driving a million miles with it won’t devalue it, and there’s not many investments that can offer that.

With that said, as more motorists are beginning to understand that it isn’t just about vanity, prices are climbing and you now need to either hold on to it for longer, or be a little lucky, but it’s doubtful that you’d ever lose money at the very least.

As for the Brexit plates … personally speaking, with the vitriol and divide between the two camps, I’d fear that my car would be a target for vandals, so on this occasion, I’d have to say “Ahm oot”.

What do you think to cherished registrations? Would you consider having a Brexit plate? Or are they just for show-offs? Let us know in the comments.

Official findings from an analysis of the 2018 Department for Transport (DfT) congestion figures show Britain’s motorways are struggling to cope with the amount of traffic and are so congested that, in some areas, drivers are clocking an average speed of only 25 miles per hour (mph).

DfT calculated average speeds by taking speed observations from a sample of cars across 24-hour periods throughout the year. They came up with the averages based on a whole day—not even when speeds are at their worst, during rush-hour.

Slow study

Experts found lots of slow areas within junctions between the slip road where motorists filter off and where vehicles enter and found 17 stretches of motorway where drivers averaged speeds below 30mph—less than the speed limit for residential areas.

Usain Bolt reached a top speed of 27.44mph when he ran the 100 metres in 9.58 seconds at the 2009 World Athletics Championship—albeit an Olympic sprinter, Bolt still travelled at a speed faster than the traffic on the five slowest stretches of motorway.

It won’t come as a surprise if you’re a regular user of it, but experts found the slowest motorway sections on the London Orbital—the M25 (often ridiculed as nothing more than ‘a big car park’), leading to the Dartford Tunnel. They recorded average speeds near the A206 junction at 25.1mph and 25.4mph near the A2 junction.

Average speed (mph) of the UK’s five slowest motorways in 2018:

1) M25 northbound Dartford Crossing near A206 junction: 25.1mph

2) M25 northbound Dartford Crossing near A2 junction: 25.4mph

3) M5 northbound near Oldbury Viaduct junction 2: 26.7mph

4) M4 westbound near Chiswick junction 1: 27.1mph

5) M5 southbound near West Bromwich junction 1: 27.2mph

Other sections in the list included the northbound stretch of the M1 near J24 at Leicestershire with an average speed of 37.1mph.

The average speed on the M6’s worst stretch (southbound between J10 and J9) was 41.7mph.

DfT experts recorded the slowest part of the M11, as southbound, heading towards the M25, between J5 and J4 in north-east London. There, speeds averaged 42.1mph.

Averaging speeds of 44.6mph, the M62’s slowest section was near Manchester on the westbound carriageway between J19 and J18.

In a jam

Rod Dennis, Senior Press Officer for the RAC, said of the sluggish speeds:

‘As these figures show, drivers will be lucky if they can drive anywhere approaching the national speed limit on some of England’s most congested stretches of motorway.

‘While some are notorious and seemingly permanent bottlenecks, others are likely to be caused by long-term roadworks which means drivers will have to hope that journey times will drop when they’re finally lifted.

‘Drivers tell us that they are becomingly [sic] increasingly dependent on using their cars, so it’s vital that investment in our motorway network is maintained.

‘Worryingly for drivers, we have seen evidence that some work to reduce traffic at pinch points on the motorway network has actually had the undesired effect of making congestion even worse, not better.

‘Clearly, tackling congestion on the UK’s major roads is never a quick or straightforward task, or for that matter, cheap.’

The DfT hasn’t commented because of the ‘purdah’ period leading up to the General Election but, in 2016, said ‘they were ‘making the most extensive improvements to roads since the 1970s, to make journeys faster, better and more reliable’ yet here we still are with major congestion problems on our motorways.

To compare findings, I looked back at 2017, at another in-depth study on the 10 worst British motorways for congestion and which stretches of road recorded the slowest average speed.

The telematics business Satrak (now part of Danish firm, Trackunit) collected data from over half a million (527,000) vehicles from across the whole 2,173 miles of Britain’s motorway network. They found the M25 London Orbital to have the slowest average speed of any motorway—once again, at just 25mph. Crawling along at that speed, you’d need to undergo an average of a five-hour drive to cover the 117-miles circling the capital.

Dan Walton, co-owner and founder of Satrak, said of the tortoise-like speeds of the M2:

‘It’s little surprise to find that the M25 is, in fact, the slowest motorway. We undertake work throughout the country and usually find the M25 to be the most cumbersome, and our data provides evidence for that. I’ve heard of tailbacks stretching 12 miles in my time there so it’s of little surprise to me.’

Stuck for an answer

When discussing traffic levels, frustrated motorists have a lot to say, the inevitable topic of overpopulation comes up, and a political discussion begins about the immigration policies of both the Conservative and Labour parties.

In 2018, people born outside the United Kingdom made up about 14% of the UK’s population but it’s important to remember that the world’s population is expanding as a whole and more people means the potential for more cars.

Families often owned one car in the past, while now they may own two or more—although 2012 RAC Foundation research (based on the 2011 Census) found an average of 487 cars and vans per 1,000 people.

Location-based data and analytics company, Inrix reported that, across Britain, we spent an average of 178 hours stuck in fury-inducing traffic last year. The figure rose to 22 hours—equal to over nine days—for drivers in England’s capital.

Early this year, Inrix also released study findings that claimed congestion cost our economy a massive £7.9 billion last year—an average of £1,317 per driver. Instead of us spending money or working, we’re wasting time in traffic jams, moving at a snail’s pace.

Maybe motorway speeds would ease somewhat if drivers stopped hogging the middle lane and moved over when possible?

One thing is certain—commuting on the motorway can be intolerable and many of us view it as much a factor in choosing a job as the salary.

How is your motorway commute? Do you inch along certain routes? What’s the answer to the levels of congestion? Tell us your views in the comments.

“IMG_7629” by ianholton is licensed under CC BY 2.0. 

Judging by online comments, tweets and positive support, I can’t be the only one who feels that Kent Police deserve a hearty pat on the back for dealing (appropriately) with a menace of modern motorway driving; the middle-lane road hogger.

Of course it’s not really a modern phenomenon, lane discipline has always been a contentious issue, but it does seem that driving standards are getting worse. (Or maybe I’m just getting old?). Having said that, it has become such a widespread problem, that it even has its own acronym now: MLM (Middle-lane Moron).

Furthermore, this action from the Police is a positive boon to proving that actual, real, live Police officers shouldn’t just be replaced by the ‘yellow vultures’.

3 miles of MLM

Earlier this month, Kent Police followed a motorist on a stretch of the M20 motorway between London and Folkestone, who had caught their attention by hogging the middle-lane for over three miles before being stopped, despite the motorway being clear, and relatively empty.

When stopped, he was adamant that he’d done nothing wrong, claiming that the motorway was empty, in fact, according to the tweet released by Kent Police, the driver refused to accept that it was careless driving. They issued the driver with a Traffic Offence Report (TOR) and reported him for Careless Driving, which could see a £100 fine being issued, along with three penalty points.

Admittedly, the driver wasn’t causing a nuisance as such, so perhaps some may view the penalty as a little harsh, but the reality is that this is lazy, inattentive driving, and better driver education can only happen when instances of such, are spotted.

43% of drivers admit to being a lane-hogger

In a survey that was conducted last year, 43% of respondents admitted to hogging lane two, with most of the drivers claiming that it avoids having to move out of lane when confronted with slower vehicles further down the road. That’s not a great reason.

Slightly better reasoning is that it makes them feel safer – 22% used that to justify it, but worryingly, 11% stated that as they’re driving at the maximum permissible speed limit, no one should driving faster than them, therefore, there was no need for them to pull over. Or perhaps to put it another way – they’re lazy, incompetent and likely to cause an accident.

With ever dwindling numbers of Traffic Police, it can be tempting to admonish other drivers, to make your point that they shouldn’t be doing X, Y or Z by causing an obstruction to them, but this is similar to ‘brake testing’ another driver and will likely cause further issues, be they traffic related, or even putting yourself at personal risk.

Poor driving

I loathe the fact that I have to share the roads with poor drivers – the type that thinks nothing of steering with their knees while sipping their takeaway coffee and checking emails, or that can’t understand why road markings separate different lanes, or even, the drivers that cut across a junction into the oncoming lane to save themselves an extra 0.5 seconds of time when turning right.

Our road laws and regulations have been written to accommodate these drivers; swathes of ‘National Speed Limit’ roads have been reduced to 50, or even 40 mph, we now have traffic islands (roundabouts) that include traffic lights as a permanent fixture, and even ridiculous warning such as ‘Bend in Road’ purely so as these motorists don’t do any injury to themselves, or others.

There was a time that people took pride in their driving prowess; similar to flying an aeroplane, there would be a vast knowledge of rules and etiquette, mechanical inspections were carried out when the driver felt there was a need, they understood the ‘two second’ rule (and abides by it), changing weather conditions meant altering the driving style … today though, driving and owning a car has become so easy that any MLM can do it without a second thought, and that’s the problem.

Better education

We always say that we aren’t taught to drive, but to pass our test, and that should change. Better driver educations starts from day one, and learner drivers should be taught road manners, along with roadcraft, and then (and only then) should they be allowed to put in for their test.

This would reduce such instances of lane-hogging, perhaps even increase the flow of traffic, and make driving a better, more pleasurable experience again.

Should the motorist be prosecuted for careless driving? What should happen to drivers that believe they are the law? Should we teach road manners when learning to drive? Let us know in the comments.

Image credit: Screenshot from video by Zanthas

A new study by short-term insurance provider, Veygo, has revealed that if you’re looking to let the train take the strain, you could be charged as much as £40 PER DAY to park your car in the station car park. In a typical working year (less weekends and holiday), that could equate to as much as £9,000.

Of course that’s with a London weighting, surely once you get outside of London, things are much cheaper? Selly Oaks in the West Midlands has free parking, as does Kirkby in Merseyside, and you’ll pay just £2.40 for a whole day of parking in Benfleet, Essex.

However, Reading station charge £25 per day, Glasgow and Edinburgh charge £24 & £22 respectively, and Manchester Piccadilly want £21 for a day’s parking. Cheap at almost half the price of St. Pancras.

Intervention

We’re forever being told that we should use mass transit or public transportation to help the environment, and aside from the argument that in most cases, it really isn’t that great or reliable, we need to factor in costs.

Rail fares are due to be increased again in January, which will push the average price of a season ticket up by a further £100, which also means for the first time ever, average prices will be above £3,000.

Add in a extra few thousand pounds for parking, and you have yourself the potential to buy a cleaner, greener vehicle that’s capable of transporting you and your family, with shopping or luggage to the exact destination you wish to be.

Whether you agree or disagree with the left-leaning politics, there’s an argument to be made regarding nationalising mass transit, just to stamp out the blatant profiteering and extortion from the privately-owned companies behind the networks.

Politicking

It doesn’t matter who is in power, or whether you believe that mass transit will never be the solution that’s required, surely, if the authorities want to promote the use of this kind of transport, they should  do more to subsidise passenger costs, or even implement regulations to prevent the disparity throughout the country.

Charging by popularity rather than actual cost makes a great business case, but effectively, the authorities are promoting the use of these networks, and the network operators are benefitting hand-over-fist thanks to this coercion. Shouldn’t something be done?

Yes, there’s an argument that real estate prices need to be accounted for, you’d expect some discrepancy between the Southern areas and those further North, but £9,000 difference is greed, pure and simple.

Most expensive rail car parks

Of course, we could leave the car at home, walk or cycle to the station if we’re young and fit enough, but that’s a solution for the minority, not the majority. After a quick search, for me to travel to London early morning, and back early evening, I’d be looing at £141 for the rail fare, and a further £12 to park – £153 against a rough cost of £50 (inc ULEZ and Congestion).

Is it really that surprising that passengers are choosing their car over rail travel? A third of the price, with all of the convenience. Add in a family and the differences really stack up.

Despite some protestations in other articles, I’m all for trying to help reduce air pollution, live a cleaner lifestyle and reduce my carbon footprint, but if I had to do that three times a week, it would be cheaper to rent a room than travel, and that just can’t be right.

Top 10 car parks

The top ten most expensive (outside of London) and cheapest rail car parks  are:

In the interest of fairness, it’s worth pointing out that along with travel season tickets, a number of the station car parks also offer parking season tickets, which could reduce the charge significantly – Reading station for example offer a season ticket for ‘just’ £1,850, which could see a saving of around £3,775 over standard rates.

But of course, that begs the question … if they can offer parking for that cheaper price, and still make a profit, why are they blatantly ripping off other motorists?

What are your thoughts? Should the government step in and regulate the prices? Are the station operators just being greedy? Let us know in the comments.

“Grately Railway Station, Hampshire.” by Mike Cattell is licensed under CC BY 2.0. 

Bristol City Council is aiming for the fastest improvement in air quality to meet legal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) targets in a bold plan with more aggressive measures than those used in London. In what would be a landmark ruling, Bristol could be the first UK city to ban all diesel private passenger cars.

The council’s proposals also recommend a charging Clean Air Zone (CAZ) for non-compliant commercial vehicles and if the government approves the plans and changes the law to put a diesel car ban in place, both reforms could come into effect March 2021.

Up in the air

Bristol City Council (who have received £1.65million from the government to fund how they would tackle the city’s air pollution) have spent £1million and missed two earlier deadlines resulting in the government threatening legal action and granting an extension while ordering them to produce a plan.

Earlier in the year, the council proposed two ways to get NO2 levels down to the European Union target. Their first option proposed a ban on all diesel vehicles from the city centre between the hours of 7 am and 3 pm, while the second was to introduce a clean air charging zone akin to the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London only for commercial vehicles, with fees of up to £100 a day.

The council left the plans open for the public vote, over six weeks throughout the summer, with the most popular of the two options to go to the Bristol City Council’s Cabinet. They received over 5,000 responses with 3,414 respondents saying they thought a CAZ would be a good way to improve air quality and 66% of people were ‘very concerned’ about the health impacts of air pollution.

In many parts of the city, air pollutants exceed legal and safe European and World Health Organisation limits and need reducing as a matter of urgency to lessen the impact on health, but the council forecast they wouldn’t meet legal limits until 2028 and so are proposing a third, hybrid plan, which combines both options and which they’ve estimated will hit the city’s NO2 legal target by 2025.

A modest proposal?

Marvin Rees, Mayor of Bristol, acknowledging the proposals were ambitious, feels they prove the council’s dedication to tackling air quality so they meet legal limits within the shortest time, without ‘disproportionally affecting citizens on lower incomes’ which he says will happen with a ‘blanket approach’ to charging vehicles.

‘Protecting the most vulnerable people from pollution is central to these plans, and we have ensured that all impacts have been carefully considered.

‘If approved, mitigation measures will support those most affected, especially those living in the most deprived communities’, said the mayor.

Nicholas Lyes, Head of Roads Policy for the RAC, says that while the motoring organisation recognises that Bristol must improve the city’s pollution, the impact of the proposals on diesel owners would be ‘unprecedented’.

‘Major routes into, out of, and even around the city—like Temple Way and Brunel Way—would become out of bounds, with diesel vehicles forced onto other roads, which risks causing congestion problems where they don’t exist at the moment.

‘Bristol has bold plans to improve its public transport system, but major improvements like its mooted rapid transit system or even more park and ride sites are still many years from becoming a reality,’ he added.

Mr Lyes said that many motorists must use their cars for journeys because of a lack of economical and reliable alternatives and that not everybody can afford the penalty of an early exit from their car finance packages.

The council also propose a scrappage scheme, but Mr Lyes said it could be very expensive for owners of older cars to switch to something different and that the RAC worries the scrappage scheme wouldn’t get drivers into cleaner cars because they’re too expensive.

Mixed feelings

Bristol is my closest city. It was my place of work (and partying) for eight wonderful years and I almost moved there. This story is therefore close to my heart, and I wanted to see what the locals had to say on the matter.

Responses from residents online are mixed. Somebody wrote that the latest diesel cars are cleaner than petrol engines and so the council’s plans are ‘complete overkill and wrong’. Another claimed most people rely on their cars because public transport isn’t affordable or reliable and clean cars cost more than most can afford.

Others are happy with the proposals, congratulating Bristol and telling them to ‘ban all cars, get the lazy gits on the buses.’

Somebody else claimed he had reduced his asthma treatment by half and no longer needed to remove ‘black sludge’ from his windscreen each day after moving from Hotwells to Lawrence Weston and the impact on health from poor air quality is something we can’t dispute.

According to a King’s College London and UK100 report, higher pollution days in the city cause four more cardiac arrests and an additional 18 hospital admissions for asthma or strokes amongst children and adults. We know air pollution can cause permanent lung damage in babies and young children and the worsening of lung and heart disease in older people. In fact, it leads to about 300 premature deaths for Bristol residents each year.

Council data shows that 40% of Bristol’s NO2 pollution comes from diesel cars, while diesel buses and coaches produce 23%, and 22% of emissions come from diesel vans. While the mayor is under a legal obligation to produce a clean air plan to protect the people of Bristol, we have to ask—will the proposals just move air pollution to the outer suburbs? And what about the impact on the poorest and most disadvantaged in the city?

One thing on which I think we can agree is that we need the government to change our transport system to one that fulfils the present and future needs of both our society and our planet, or in common parlance, one that is ‘shipshape and Bristol fashion’.

The Outline Business Case (OBC) went to a cabinet meeting yesterday (Tuesday 5th November). If approved, the proposals go to the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) before a final plan submission to government next year. The deadline for implementation is March 2021.

What do you think of Bristol City council’s proposals? How could the council improve upon their plans? Will the proposed ban affect you? Tell us in the comments.

“Cycling Bristol” by Tejvan Pettinger is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

We often hear about ‘range anxiety’ when talking about electric vehicles, of course it refers to the angst you feel when travelling anything further than your regular journey, or pushing the limits of the range; will you make it to your destination?

Charging stations are becoming commonplace, although still not quite as readily available or accessible as traditional garage forecourts, and of course, by their very nature could be occupied for some time, but researchers at Penn State University in the U.S. may have the answer.

80% charge in half an hour

Manufacturers of electric vehicles are constantly developing methods to increase charge rates, or lessen charge time, to make the whole process of driving a BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle) as convenient as possible – it really wasn’t that along ago that running out of charge meant a ten-hour (at least) wait, while the electricity trickled through the cells at a snail’s pace.

Most mainstream manufacturers now offer something like an 80% charge in thirty minutes, but even that figure still lags way behind the traditional internal combustion refuel where the longest wait could be in the queue to pay for it.

This is just one of the reasons that people quote as to why they’d never own a BEV, or why an all-electric vehicle will never have the same dominance as ICE. But what if you could completely recharge in ten minutes?

New process, same tech

Recharging batteries (be that a regular lead-acid, phone, camera … pretty much any battery) faster than recommended has always been able to be done, but invariably it damages the battery and shortens the lifespan; be that the life of the battery itself, or the charge it holds.

And when you hear that replacement batteries can cost thousands of pounds (a Nissan Leaf battery pack for example will cost £4920), it’s the wise choice to do all you can to prevent damaging the batteries, and maximise their life.

Lithium-ion batteries are no different – rapid charging will lead to degradation; at lower temperatures, the ions end up as spikes on the anode electrode rather than having a smooth finish, in a process called ‘lithium plating’. This leads to reduced capacity and potentially premature failure. The way to avoid lithium plating is to charge at higher temperatures.

However, heating the battery is not without problems either; while it avoids the plating issue, it can deteriorate the battery in other ways, so the key is to find the sweet spot.

The Penn State team have found that by heating the batteries to 60C, and then rapidly cooling them to ambient temperatures, lithium plating is avoided, as is heat damage – the best of both worlds.

New battery

To make this technology work, the team have developed a new battery which incorporates a thin nickel foil, which when activated, creates an electrical circuit that heats the internal structure of the battery in less than 30 seconds, the cooling effect comes from the vehicle’s own cooling system.

Professor Chao-Yang Wang at Penn State said: “We demonstrated that we can charge an electrical vehicle in 10 minutes for a 200 to 300-mile range, and we can do this maintaining 2,500 charging cycles, or the equivalent of half a million miles of travel. The 10-minute trend is for the future and is essential for adoption of electric vehicles because it solves the range anxiety problem.”

Essentially, this could be great news for buyers that have, up until now, been putting off a purchase of a BEV due to worries over charging, but as with all things technology related, this will mean a further increase in purchase price until the tech is readily and widely adopted.

It has taken around ten years of constant development for regular electric vehicles to even get close to their ICE counterparts in terms of purchase price, and the majority of that price differential was always accounted for by battery prices, so it’s likely that a return to newer battery technology could once again push those prices upwards.

With that said, the whole BEV market is really still in its infancy, it will take decades of development for the tech to plateau, just the same as the internal combustion engine. No doubt that we’ll see waves of new technology being introduced which will lead to a surge in pricing, before settling back down again – there will be a constant ebb and flow of pricing, right up until the ‘next big thing’.

There was most definitely a time that motorists, journalists, and ‘petrolheads’ laughed at the thought of an electric vehicle becoming mainstream, but that time is almost here, and thanks to technology and processes, these new vehicles will be better than anything that has preceded them.

What do you think … will reduced charge times be enough to turn the tables for you? Should we just embrace BEVs with the same vigour as we do (did?) the petrol engine? Let us know in the comments.

“Electric Car” by Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine Photostream is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

While I’m sometimes dismissive of a handful of new driving regulations, and feel that the authorities are too reliant on using technology to ‘spy’ on us, without discretion, lenience or the ability to put our case, there does come a time when they seem to get things right.

Until recently, to be prosecuted for using a mobile phone at the wheel, you had to be using the device for communication – text messaging or calls etc, and although there are circumstances that could see you prosecuted for using the phone for other uses, they were in the minority.

In 2018, a member of the public was convicted for using his phone to film the aftermath of a road accident while driving through it, he appealed the conviction in the High Court and was cleared. Lady Justice Thirlwall said: “The legislation does not prohibit all use of a mobile phone held while driving.”

“It prohibits driving while using a phone for calls and other interactive communication – and holding it at some stage during that process.”

Closing the loophole

Research by the RAC has shown that 17% of UK drivers admit to checking their phones for texts, emails and social media while driving, and 35% of the under-25s regularly do so.

In 2017, there were 773 incidents of road traffic collisions where the driver using a mobile phone was to blame, this includes 43 fatalities, and 135 serious injuries. Clearly, the drastic cut in police numbers (just under 30% in a decade) has exacerbated the problem.

But similar to a number of other legal actions and processes, the authorities are now turning to technology to enforce new regulations; new HD cameras that use a combination of ‘sophisticated algorithms’ and artificial intelligence to determine whether a driver is using their phone, and it won’t matter for what reason.

Hi-tech cameras

Highways England are currently trialling hi-tech cameras that attach to the overhead gantries, and are capable of automatically detecting, photographing, and sending to the relevant authorities, hi-def pictures showing the driver using their phone; a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) will shortly follow.

Similar systems trialled in Australia earlier this year, caught more than 100,000 motorists trying to cheat the system (in just six months), and it’s hoped that there will be similar results in the UK. A spokesman for the Department of Transport (DfT) said that “some very early trial work on technology to detect mobile phone usage on the strategic road network is in place” and the results were encouraging.

The end of the Police

While this is yet another nail in the coffin for the police, with the government outsourcing more processes to technology, you’d have to argue that while technology may have many, wonderful uses, policing the roads to this extent shouldn’t really be one of them.

The reliance on tech means that the government (and it really doesn’t matter which one) can almost justify the decrease in numbers, spending and budget; with ‘criminals’ being caught 24/7 through the use of cameras, why should they spend more money on actual human resource to get the job done?

But this is a very short-sighted view (but would we expect anything less?) from the ministers and politicians – there will come a day when cars virtually police themselves; they already have the technology to adjust speeds, and of course when they’re fully autonomous, accidents will be fewer, speeding will be albeit impossible, and it won’t matter whether you’re making calls, sending video messages or updating your social media.

So then we could perhaps turn to other ‘real’ crime, except that the numbers of police will have dwindled so much, and the expertise in catching criminals forgotten, and the ‘thin blue line’ will be so thin, as to be non-existent.

Technology may be great for simple, repetitive and mundane tasks such as catching motorists flouting the law, but not great for chasing down the burglar running from a crime scene, or stopping the drug dealer from handing out parcels of junk on the street corner, for this, we need human resource.

Breaking the law

I’m genuinely pleased that the tech exists to catch drivers using mobile phones (for whatever reason), I think they’re a scourge of our society, and repeat offenders should actually lose their licence, but the politicians, law makers and authorities need to understand that motoring crimes aren’t the be all and end all.

Any monies saved through the use of technology should be fed back into the system to develop further resource, not be seen as a bonus to pay the politicians for sleeping in the Commons.

What do you think to the tech? Should repeat offenders lose their privilege to drive? Are the authorities heading down a slippery slope? Let us know in the comments.

“Using a mobile phone while driving stock photo” by DPP Law is licensed under CC BY 2.0.