“The action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force”; the legal definition of robbery.

‘Robbery’ perhaps may be a little harsh, although if you consider the threat of having your car clamped, towed away or just punitive financial charges to be forceful, then it could work. If you’ve ever been caught at a car park without the correct change, only for the machine to tell you that ‘No Change Given’, you’ll have an understanding of the point.

If you’re paying for £1.60 worth of parking with two £1 coins, you’re not getting any extra, you don’t a credit for the next time, you can’t stay any longer (unless that rolls you into the next time slot), you’re just giving the parking operator free money, and they really do view it as free money.

NCPs free money

NCP typically make just under £700,000 per year from overpayments – all of those odd bits of payments that they hang on to when their machines won’t give change; between 2009 – 2012, NCP made an extra £2.44m just from these overpayments alone.

You could argue that the onus is on the driver to ensure that they have the correct money, which is a fair point, but sometimes life doesn’t work out that way, and with technology being as it is, why can’t there be card payments? Or smart parking using your smartphone?

It’s a lucrative little hustle for car park operators, it just happens that NCP are the biggest operator in the UK with over 600 sites managed or owned by them. It has been described as ‘fleecing the motorist’ by an RAC spokesman, and yet that still isn’t the ‘free money’.

Tax avoidance (gone wrong)

Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) have recently been in court with NCP, with the car park operator as the claimant, after HMRC deemed that the £2.4 million pounds should be subject to payment of the 20% VAT tariff.

It seems as though NCP wanted to recoup the near £490,000 VAT payment to HMRC, and used the legal process of the High Court to try and do just that, after an earlier appeal went against them. The basis of their defence, and their subsequent appeal relied on the argument that this money wasn’t a direct payment for a service, that the parking had already been paid for, so the overpayment was just that. (A bonus?)
Lord Justices Newey, Patten, and Males dismissed NCPs claim, deeming that it was the total sum paid that covered the parking charge, and therefore, entirely valid for the HMRC to claim VAT on the figure.

Pete Williams from the RAC stated: “Everyone who has been unlucky enough to be fleeced in such a way by a car park operator will view this appeal with utter contempt” and Edmund King, AA president had similar views: “Drivers who have wanted to give left-over parking time to another motorist but been prevented by measures to stop tickets being transferred will have a wry smile on their face when they hear this court ruling”.

Have your cake and eat it too

Of course there is a simple solution to the problem; give change, take card payments or implement a system that can be accessed from an App – all three solutions would negate the issue, but at nearly £700,000 a year, the car park operators are unwilling to do that.

Perhaps the most galling part of this, is the ‘wanting your cake and eating it too’ greed of the operators; surely, if they’re making free money (remember, according to them, they’re not offering a service for this money), the least they could do is pay tax on it graciously.

The increase in technology means that we’re moving further toward a cashless society with each month that passes – paying for smaller items is as simple as a swipe of a card, or wave of a smartphone, and payments by card overtook cash payments (by volume) over a year ago, so carrying a pocketful of change isn’t as commonplace as it once was.

On top of that, councils are already making huge profit in parking charges, and it seems that we now have to contend with the operators themselves joining the fray and removing even more money unnecessarily unless you classify greed as a necessity.

It would be great to see the authority owned car parks tackling this problem on our behalf, but unfortunately, that’s just probably wishful thinking.

Should parking operators still be able to get away with such shoddy practice? Perhaps you’d like to see the regulations tightened up? Can you think of one aspect of motoring that isn’t taxed in some way? Let us know in the comments.

A report for the Department for Transport, released in November 2018, very clearly stated that reducing speed limits to 20mph does little for road safety or the environment, and in many cases, it can actually lead to greater pollution and a higher number of accidents.

And yet Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales says that Wales needs a default limit of 20mph across all residential roads, because trials in Cardiff and Swansea have shown some evidence that supports the theory of improving air quality, reducing accidents and restoring a sense of community.

When we reported on the story later in the month (November 2018), the conclusion was that the blanket 20mph zones were more about the perception of the neighbourhood, rather than any quantifiable benefit, and perhaps that’s what Drakeford is referring to with his “restoring a sense of community” comment.

Slow and safe

The theory behind 20mph zones is logical; slower speeds give more reaction time, mean less injury in the event of a collision (the campaign group ‘20’s Plenty for Us’ say that you’re seven times less likely to die from being hit by a car at 20mph than you are at 30mph) and lessens pollution through engines not being worked as hard.

With that said, the statistics behind 20mph zones are factual; speeds decrease by less than 1mph, distraction rates increase (either through complacency with the lower speed or constantly checking speeds) and pollution will only lessen under very strict circumstance which is virtually never achieved.

Besides the evidence indicating that 20mph zones don’t actually do much, there’s also the cost factor – millions will be spent to implement the low-speed zones, and unless they’re combined with further measures such as traffic calming, they simply won’t work.

Further still, it’s when you add in these extra traffic calming measures that the pollution levels rise due to the stop & start nature of the traffic.

Campaign groups

In amongst the evidence being put forward by the Welsh government is the report by Public Health Wales which claims there would be significant benefit to public health by dropping the limit from 30mph to 20mph; the problem being that the report was released two years before the DfT report stating otherwise.

There’s also the quote from the 20’s Plenty for Us group: “The introduction of 20mph limits in built-up areas has a small but significant impact on vehicle speeds and casualty numbers and when used in combination with other initiatives such as road design, enforcement, new technology and programmes of behaviour change, has the capacity to reduce maximum vehicle speeds towards the 20mph target and thus make major inroads into casualty levels “.

What they’re actually proposing isn’t just a simple lowering of the speed limit – re-education, limit enforcement and road design isn’t the work of a moment, and even with all of that, they’re viewing it as reducing the speed toward the 20mph target, not actually reaching that target.

Safe and sound

Road safety experts at the AA are unequivocally clear: A waste of money, that will rely on taxpayers and motorists to pay for the schemes that could in actual fact be more dangerous than what’s already in place; when the 20mph zones were introduced in England, many of the sites saw an increase in deaths and serious accidents rather than a reduction.

In December 2017, Bath and North East Somerset Council admitted that after introducing 13 new 20mph zones, seven of those 13 saw a significant rise in deaths and injuries, but that they wouldn’t be changing them back due to the cost – £871,000 to introduce, estimated at similar cost to reverse. The question you’d have to ask is how do they justify the decision?

Surely, if they can find £800,000 to ‘save lives’ and lower the speed limit, how can they now say that “actually, what we’ve implemented is causing increased loss of life, but we’re OK with not spending anymore money to rectify that problem”?

Of course, road safety is hugely important, we’d happily support a campaign to help prevent loss of life on the roads, but it has to be more than a whim, not based on an uninformed opinion of politicians that think they’re right because they’re politicians and therefore know what’s best in every situation.

We’ve already seen a huge reduction in rural roads that were once national speed limit because of ‘safety’, and now it seems that yet again, we have to conform with the lowest driving standards of people that would be far happier walking.

Do you think that 20mph zones work? Should they feature more on our road network? Or do you believe that this is just a hairbrained scheme thought up for political gain? Let us know in the comments.

Fuel prices have been increasing steadily and rose at their fastest rate in April since 2000 by 5.44 pence per litre for Unleaded. These huge increases are driving up the total cost of ownership for a motorist, combined with new congestion charges, rises in road tax and insurance premiums.

In order to offset rising prices, the need for fuel efficiency has become one of the most important considerations for motorists when buying a replacement new or used car. This is why hybrid vehicles have gained in popularity due to efficiencies gained in miles per gallon (i.e. MPG) from using an electric engine at slow speeds or idling when MPG is low and an efficient combustion engine for higher speeds when the MPG is high.

Fuel effiecient Ford

Car manufacturers have also made new petrol and diesel cars much more fuel efficient, with smaller engines and lighter cars that extend the effective range by hundreds of miles on less fuel, leading to a better MPG.

In a recent study by Euro Car Parts, they created a uniform driving distance test to see how much the top ten most purchased cars in 2018 would travel the furthest on a tank of petrol, purchased at the same price of £1.28 per litre. It found that the Ford Focus (5th most purchased car) came top with a stunning 1,112 miles on a tank of fuel costing £66.75, with an MPG of 97.2 miles and a cost per mile (i.e. CPM) of an amazing 5.9 pence.

The Ford Fiesta, which was the most purchased car in the UK in 2018 managed to achieve 821 miles on a tank of fuel costing £53.76, with an MPG of 88.8 miles and CPM of 6.4 pence. VW Polo (6th most purchased car) came top for the least amount of fuel bought to fill up at £51.20, delivering an MPG of 91.2 miles and CPM of 6.4 pence.

Not a natural skill

By contrast, the Vauxhall Corsa (3rd most purchased car) delivered a shocking 606.28 miles on a full tank costing £57.60, with an MPG of 61.2 miles and CPM of 9.5 pence. And perhaps most ironic of all, the smallest car by height is the MINI Hatch (7th most purchased car) it delivered 639.3 miles on a full tank costing £56.32, with an MPG of 61.2 miles and CPM of 8.8 pence, so clearly size of car does not determine fuel efficiency, but perhaps the MINI is heavier than its rivals, we’re not sure.

Commenting on the research, Chris Barella, Vice President of Sales at Euro Car Parts said: “Trying to travel on only one tank of petrol can actually be harder than it sounds. Driving efficiently doesn’t always come naturally!

“However, when purchasing a motor, it’s worth considering which cars are the most fuel efficient. The overall savings you could make could go towards the cost of a whole car after a few years!

“Not only is driving efficiently good for our pockets – it’s also better for the environment.”

Running costs

Achieving an optimum level of fuel efficiency is extremely beneficial to saving money running your car as this test demonstrates, but if we all did this we would be driving at 60 MPH on the motorway. Under real-world driving conditions, we all change our driving habits and fuel efficiency based on when we need it. If we’re running late to pick up the kids, for example, we might go a little bit more urgently than normal and saving money on fuel is not on your mind.

It is recommended when considering buying a new or used car, sit down and calculate the total cost of ownership, not only the finance but also running costs.

Here is a good free calculator: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-1633412/Calculator-True-cost-running-car.html
You might be really surprised as the results could show a more expensive car is actually better overall than the cheapest, which could be a false economy. Vauxhall Corsa, the cheapest of the top 10 cars purchased in the UK proves this.

As ever PetrolPrices is here to help members to save money on fuel. In our estimates, if you always go to the cheapest places wherever you are by using our alerts, app and website the average person will save over £200 a year.

What do you think about these results from Euro Car Parts? Are you a proud Ford Focus owner and can confirm it’s amazing fuel economy or are you an embarrassed MINI driver? Let us know in the comments below.

Electric cars are just a fad – they’re never going to replace the internal combustion engine; history has proven that already – the first electric production vehicle actually pre-dates the accepted 1886 Karl Benz creation ‘Benz Patent-Motorwagen’ by two years, and people soon realised that range was limited, as was power and the ability to recharge on the go.

There’s been over a century of development with ICE (Internal Combustion Engine), this has led to more power, greater reliability, less emissions and lifecycles that never seem to end – what can electric cars claim? A ‘good’ one (read: expensive) can just about make it from London to Manchester before you’re in for a long wait while it recharges.

The electrical myth

That sort of thinking was commonplace a decade or so ago; electric vehicles were an expensive toy that seemed to be the vehicle of choice for those that could afford to be principled, that didn’t really need a car for daily transport, or for those that wanted to make a statement.

Today, that has changed somewhat; electric vehicle sales are on the increase, the technology powering them has taken giant strides forward, and prices are almost comparable to their fossil-fuelled counterparts, in fact I’d hazard a guess that across the complete lifetime of vehicle ownership, they’d work out cheaper.

Whether you’re for or against, the electric vehicle movement is happening, and most industry experts say that they’ll be dominant in the next decade – the internal combustion engine development cycle is already slowing, most manufacturers shifting their focus to the cleaner, and let’s be honest, corporate image enhancing BEVs (Battery Electric Vehicles).

BEVs in numbers

With that said, there’s still a surprising amount of misinformation doing the rounds when it comes to electric cars and hybrids; LV= surveyed 2,004 UK adults to try and paint a picture of electric car usage, and the results were surprising.

One in ten people believe that a full electric vehicle can’t be used in the rain due to risk of electric shock, nearly double that figure believe that you can’t use a car wash (presumably for the same reason) and somewhere between the two are the people that think electric cars aren’t allowed to be driven on a motorway.

Amongst the ‘uninformed’ opinions, there were some very real concerns relating to battery range, pricing and manufacturing methods (51% of respondents said they’d worry about running out of charge), but the largest number of interviewees (55%) thought that electric vehicles just couldn’t compare with the outright power of diesel and unleaded.

Car utopia

While it seems that the ‘motor vehicle’ has been made scapegoat for a number of environmental issues, and the motorist being made to quite literally pay for the damage caused by them is a common theme, we shouldn’t believe that electric vehicles will be the saviour of the planet – consider it more as a sticking plaster fix, even more so in the short term.

Many environmentalists forget that the national grid will struggle if every motorist adopted an electric vehicle overnight, that the charging infrastructure simply isn’t in place, or that it’s necessary to use (and therefore mine) precious elements like cobalt for batteries, which is in short supply.

There’s also a question over what’s going to happen to the thousands of batteries when they’ve reached their end of life, and that while the vehicle itself may be emission-free, the process to make it or charge it isn’t – you’re simply shifting the emissions to a different part of the supply line.

There’s no doubting that a number of points raised by motorists are very real; range can be lacking under certain circumstance, charging still takes longer than refuelling, extreme temperatures can have an affect on range, but a great many of these ‘problems’ are fast becoming non-issues, and we shouldn’t forget that serious development of electric vehicles has only been happening for around 15 years.

Electric development today

Within those 15 years, we’ve seen ranges extended from less than 50 miles to hundreds of miles, battery prices falling from around £750 per kWh to approximately £150 per kWh, charging times lessened with many manufacturers offering an 80% charge within 30 minutes, and of course, huge infrastructure developments and investments so that the actual act of recharging is more available.

Realistically, buying an electric vehicle is a real alternative for many people if they’re already in the market for a new(er) car, and with government incentives available to help with the purchase price and the installation of a charger at home, not only is it a realistic alternative, but a viable one.

What do you think of electric vehicles? Is it something that you’re interested in? Or are you in the 18% that have said they’ll never own one? Let us know in the comments.

When you’re next driving, what you might think is another lorry passing by could be an undercover police officer in an unmarked heavy goods vehicle (HGV). As part of Operation Tramline, in the last 12 months, police across the country in three so-called ‘supercabs’, caught over 3,000 motorists committing driving offences.

Twenty-nine police forces have used the unmarked HGVs to patrol England’s motorways and major A-roads, using wide angled cameras to film evidence of unsafe driving and have already recorded over 3,500 offences in one year.

Causing offence

To improve safety on England’s high-speed roads, the police HGVs use de-restricted speed limiters so they can travel at speeds up to the national speed limit. The HGVs pull up alongside vehicles and marked police cars following behind pull over the motorists committing the driving offences.

In 2017, 27% (1,195) of people killed on the road weren’t wearing their seat belts. Despite this, not wearing a seat belt was the top offence recorded by officers of Operation Tramline. Figures from Highways England show a third of the vehicles filmed contained someone in the vehicle without their seat belt fastened.

New studies show one death on the roads every 12 days involves mobile phone use. Yet the second most prevalent offence caught by the supercabs involved motorists using hand-held devices while driving (1,062 offences). The next most common offences included not being in proper control of a vehicle (262 offences) and speeding (118 offences).

One of the most shocking bits of footage released by Highways England includes a lorry driver making an online payment while driving. Snapped on the M40 near Leamington Spa in Warwickshire, the footage shows the man holding his credit card with one hand and his mobile phone with the other.

Other footage shows a van driver on the A38 holding his phone in one hand, changing gear with the other, pulling into a service station a few seconds later. Officers recorded another motorist driving his pickup truck on the M60 near Eccles, Greater Manchester, texting with both hands.

Figures show there’s twice the chance of crashing from text-driving as from drink-driving. As drivers, we’re advised to turn off our phones before setting off in our vehicles, but a fifth of drivers (21%) can’t bear to switch off their phones. With young drivers, the figure increased to more than half (51%) unable to power down their electronic companions.

In 12 months, police filed 2,533 traffic offence reports—which often results in the guilty motorist attending a driver education course—and issued 462 penalty charge notices. Police made 73 further prosecutions for more serious offences. Despite these startling figures, the number of offences has fallen since 2018.

Highway robbery

Whenever news breaks of yet more driver monitoring, the public question why our government can use money and police resources for such endeavours when other crimes appear to go uninvestigated and it’s a valid question.

While it’s true that government cuts are destroying our police forces’ ability to police well and that ministers need to address the issue, we can’t ignore the fact that many road incidents and resulting deaths are avoidable, so perhaps those drivers who appear to have a surgical attachment to their mobiles will feel less tempted to break the law knowing police officers can peer into their car without them knowing.

Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Roads Policing said:

“Operation Tramline is a successful collaboration between the police and Highways England.

“We remain committed to tackling those who take unnecessary risks with their own safety and the safety of others on our roads by allowing themselves to be distracted while driving. The consequences of these actions are often devastating.

“We will continue to work alongside Highways England on Operation Tramline and will prosecute drivers who ignore the risks.”

Support also came from Tom Cotton, Head of Licencing and Infrastructure Policy for the Road Haulage Association, who said:

“We need to improve road safety—there’s a small minority of drivers whose actions endanger other road users often with tragic consequences.”

Stay on the straight and narrow

Using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving became illegal in December 2003 and in March 2017, the Department for Transport increased the punishment for motorists using their phones while driving, from three to six penalty points. Fines also went from £100 to £200.

If these punishments aren’t enough, they bring with them higher insurance costs. Also, if you get six points in the first two years of passing your driving test, you’ll lose your licence. If your driving’s bad, or if a crash occurs while you’re using the phone, police could also prosecute you for careless or dangerous driving.

Drivers using a mobile while driving must have hands-free access, such as a Bluetooth headset or a windscreen mount—as long as the device doesn’t block your view. With that said, police can prosecute you If you’re seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands-free phone.

You can hold a mobile phone to make an emergency call to 999 or 112 only if stopping is unsafe or impractical.

It’s also illegal to hold a phone, or a satnav while riding a motorcycle.

Footballer David Beckham was last week banned from driving for six months after a member of the public photographed him using his phone while driving. Dashcams now feature in many cars, plenty of cyclists use helmet cams, and CCTV is everywhere, so remember; it’s not only the police watching you.

What’s your opinion on the undercover HGVs? Are you for or against Operation Tramline? Tell us your views in the comments.

If you’ve ever watched Top Gear, you’ll most probably have heard them bemoaning Peugeot drivers and Peugeot themselves. One particular skit comes to mind entitled the “Modern Peugeot Drivers Adventure” in which James May and Jeremy Clarkson drive rather irresponsibly, poking fun at the stereotype that Peugeot’s are badly built and badly driven.

However, in a new study by JD Power, they reveal that the most reliable car brand in the UK in 2018 was indeed Peugout themselves. Long gone are the days of unreliable smaller cars, now mass production car brands are appearing higher and higher in surveys on reliability.

The results

The JD Power dependability survey, now in its fifth year, measures the number of problems experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100), with a lower score indicating better performance. The study measures 177 problem symptoms in eight categories: vehicle exterior; driving experience; features/controls/displays (FCD); audio/communication/entertainment/navigation (ACEN); seats; heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); vehicle interior; and engine and transmission.

One of the main takeaways was that since last year all problems, aside from seats, have improved in their PP100, with ACEN issues actually decreasing year on year. Unsurprisingly premium vehicles reported more issues with ACEN, due to the higher number of vehicles that have more sophisticated systems.

Customers who bought vehicles that suffered engine faults were less likely to buy that brand again, more than any other issue. Engine failures had the greatest negative effect on repurchasing habits and on brand reputation.

Another major point was that even though electric and hybrid vehicles had more issues than any other car type, owners of those vehicles were more likely to repurchase the same car or brand again than any other engine type owner.

How did different brands compare?

Peugeot ranked top, with 77PP100, joining nine other ‘volume brands’ with Skoda in second and Hyundai in third.

In the more premium brands, Volvo came out top, but still only 10th overall with a PP100 of 106. Mercedes followed in second with 136 PP100.

Brands that used advanced technology as a major selling point for their vehicles also had higher noted dissatisfaction or issues from customers.

“When we look at the PP100 scores of relatively new safety technologies, it’s clear that manufacturers still have work to do to perfect those systems—particularly premium brands that use them as a major selling point,” said Josh Halliburton, Head of European Operations at J.D. Power. “It’s also going to be vital for vehicle makers to win customer trust in this technology if they are to convince potential buyers that fully automated vehicles in the future will be reliable. For example, such buyers are quite likely to question the safety of self-driving cars if brands still struggle with the accuracy of their navigation systems.”

The graph below shows the 20 most popular brands, ranked by PP100 score. It is worth noting that Jeep, Mitsubishi and smart were included in the survey but were omitted from the overall results due to small sample size. Source: J.D. Power 2019 UK Vehicle Dependability StudySM (VDS)

Best individual cars

The survey not only ranked brands but individual cars. They looked at the top three models in each segment; City Car, Midsize Car, Compact Car, MPV, Compact SUV, Small Car, Large and Luxury Car, Small SUV.

The VW Up! Came out top in the City Car and their Tiguan also won the best Compact SUV. Vauxhall also took away two top vehicles with both the Insignia and the Mokka/Mokka X hitting top in the Midsize Car and the Small SUV respectively.

The Skoda Octavia was the best Compact Car and the Ford C-Max/Grand C-Max was the best MPV. The best-rated brand Peugeot had the best Small Car with the Peugeot 208 and finally, Mercedes had the best large and luxury car with the E-Class.

Was this the result you expected? Would you consider purchasing one of the above? How dependable is your vehicle? Let us know below.