Throughout the UK, just over four people are caught speeding every minute – or around 6,000 every day. Avon and Somerset police top the league table, at around 548 a day, the neighbouring force, Wiltshire, are at the very bottom – just 1,191, per year.

Do drivers immediately speed up when they reach Avon and Somerset? Or is there something more to it? Is it the heady thought of a holiday in the south-west that’s causing the problem? How can there be such discrepancy?

Data analysis

Thoughts turn to the oft-used phrase “revenue raising”; lowering the threshold for what constitutes speeding is simple enough, except in this case, Avon and Somerset’s police are adhering to the NPCC (formerly ACPO) guidelines of 10% + 2mph, ie, 30mph would need a minimum of 35mph to trigger an incident of ‘speeding’.
Similarly, Wiltshire hasn’t relaxed the speeding guidelines either.

It’s only by looking into the statistics that we get a clearer picture as to where the disparity may stem from; 100% of the offences in Avon and Somerset were caught by a safety camera, and out of the 1,191 motorists speeding in Wiltshire, 0% were caught by a camera.

While many forces are cutting the use of fixed speed cameras, either through a budgetary deficiency or other means, Avon and Somerset have 96% of their speed cameras active. Only five other forces (that responded to a Freedom of Information request) had the same percentage or higher, and out of those areas, only one force had a greater number of cameras; Nottinghamshire (with just 27,155 offences caught).

RAC Foundation

The study has been carried out by Dr Adam Snow from Liverpool John Moores University for the RAC Foundation, as part of some wider research into speeding offences and how they’re dealt with throughout the nation.

The biggest takeaway from the study is that speeding seems to be on the up, the increased use of speed cameras has had a dramatic effect on numbers caught (Avon and Somerset recorded a 416% increase in detections between the period 2011 – 2018), and that there seems to be no cohesion as to how the offence is dealt with – Derbyshire sent just 1% of speeders on a Speed Awareness Course, Durham topped the list at 60% being offered a SAC.

It’s easy to decry the use of speed cameras, and they do have their flaws, but it could be argued that they’re doing part of a job, of which has all but been made redundant thanks to budget cuts and reprioritisation. Steve Gooding, RAC Foundation director says: “A lot of it will come down to local policing priorities, it’s the job of the police, crime commissioners, and chief constables to target resources appropriately, recognising the issues of local concern”.

It’s worth noting that Avon and Somerset have over 130 active community speed watch schemes running, although being caught through the scheme means a stern warning, rather than penalty points.

The top five

The areas with the most offences detected are:

Avon and Somerset (27 of 28 cameras active)
West Yorkshire (98/396)
Metropolitan Police, inc City of London (figures only for City of London 4/4)
Thames Valley (no figures released)
Greater Manchester (43/177)

It’s no surprise to learn that the areas with the least detection rates have at least two without cameras, although it’s believed to be three.

Wiltshire (no figures released, but press cuttings say cameras deactivated in 2010/11)
Durham (no cameras)
Derbyshire (10/112)
Cleveland (no cameras)
Kent (19/77)

Unfortunately, there is no dataset for road traffic collisions available for Cleveland and Durham, which would give us a good indicator as to just how ‘safe’ safety cameras are, but if road safety campaigners are to be believed, then surely Durham and Cleveland would be an accident hotspot, figuring in national news on a regular basis?

For the record, we aren’t saying that all safety (or speed) cameras are focused in revenue generation, with absolutely no need for them to be there, but it gets back to what is appropriate speed, and until they’re able to distinguish the difference between appropriate speed, and ‘speeding’, then perhaps the discretion of a traffic officer may always be the favoured option.

Crime fighting technology

We’re used to technology playing a bigger part in our lives, be that in an official capacity or for our own personal benefit, and surely it’s only ever going to increase. We often hear of people bemoaning the fact that driving standards seem to be falling, but as sensors get evermore intelligent, they could just be the saviour of driving standards, perhaps even encouraging change on a societal level, but then of course any change would be subject to the cry of ‘Big Brother is watching you’.

Should we rely on technology to aid driving standards? Do you think that technology can be used to improve our journeys? Or are we heading in to the abyss of machine dominance? Let us know in the comments.

The hazards potholes create are well-known to motorists and cyclists; damage to your car or bike and an uncomfortable or dangerous ride. More worrying is potholes have resulted in serious injury or death of almost 400 cyclists over the past ten years. Now, the results of two surveys show the sheer scale of the pothole issue we have on our roads.

The Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) and Kwik Fit each published findings which, together, highlight both the condition of — and the harm caused by — the state of our road surfaces.

Road to recovery

The AIA’s Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) survey shows that pothole repairs in England and Wales rose by 330,000 in 2018 to a staggering 1.86million. In fact, councils are fixing a pothole every 17 seconds with last year’s freezing weather much to blame for the decline of the roads.

But there’s hope for improvement as the Department for Transport gives councils over £200million for road repairs, to fix over 1,000 miles of highway — with £50million reserved for potholes and flood measures.

Research into advanced surface materials and reconstruction techniques will continue, such as an asphalt three-dimensional printer researchers at University College London designed to repair road cracks and potholes.

Over six million vehicles suffered damage from potholes with an average garage bill of £108.60 but the ALARM survey shows that motorists in England and Wales have only received £13.5million in compensation—just 2.1% of the total loss.

Kwik Fit’s study on potholes showed that the number of us affected in 2018 increased by 2.9 million to over 11 million. The most common damage is to a vehicle’s steering, suspension, and wheels.

In the last twelve months, 31% of motorists who hit a pothole said they thought it was a puddle because water hid it, 46% said they risked colliding with other traffic if they had swerved around the pothole and 4% admitted they hit a pothole because they were speeding.

Patched up

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, who claims the Government is ‘continuing to step up its funding to local authorities’ for pothole repairs said:

“It is now up to highways authorities to innovate and use new technologies to solve the problem.”

Mr Grayling has launched a consultation on increasing the guarantee on utility firms’ roadworks so that if a pothole forms within five years, the company must bring the road surface back to normal.

“Road surfaces can be made worse by utility companies, so imposing higher standards on repairs will help keep roads pothole-free for longer,” said the Transport Secretary.

Last year the AIA claimed it would cost £1.5billion more in funding each year, for the next 10 years, for repairs on local roads to reach a condition whereby they would be cost-effective to manage.

AIA Chairman Rick Green reacted to the news of more government funding:

“It is encouraging that those in control of the purse strings seem to have recognised the value that additional expenditure on roads can deliver. But it’s clear from the 29% increase in the number of potholes filled in England … that much of this has been used for patch and mend [work].

“This doesn’t provide value for money, nor will it improve the underlying structure and resilience of our roads,” he said.

Pot luck

There are steps you can take to both reduce your chances of hitting a pothole and to reduce the damage to your vehicle if run over one:

Check your tyres are at the recommended air pressure because if they’re under or over-inflated, your car is more likely to sustain pothole damage.

Consider winter tyres if you live in an area affected by lots of potholes. The sides of the tyres are often a little larger, and able to absorb the impact that driving into a pothole can cause.

Rain pools in potholes so try to avoid puddles where you can. Drive with caution if dodging a puddle isn’t possible.

Reduce your speed if you’re on a bumpy stretch of road. The faster you’re driving when you hit a pothole, the more damage you should expect.

Potholes can sometimes cause drivers to lose control of their vehicle, so keep your hands at the ‘ten to two’ position on the wheel to stay in command of your car.

If you hit a pothole, stop in a safe place and assess the damage as soon as possible.

Sometimes pothole damage won’t appear obvious straight away, so keep checking your tyres and wheels in the days afterwards. Get the vehicle checked out at your first opportunity if you think your car has suffered damage.

Do your bit by reporting potholes; don’t assume others have reported them and if you want to make a claim, this website will tell you all you need to know.

What condition are the roads where you drive or ride? Have they damaged your bike or car? Have poor roads caused you an injury? Tell us in the comments.

A £20 million Department for Transport award for ‘future mobility’ schemes has allowed the West Midlands Combined Authority to be the first to introduce the radical concept; an incentive to give up the car, rather than punitive stealth taxation to force us off the road.

It’s set to launch in Coventry later this year, but if successful, it will be rolled out to other parts of the West Midlands, and then nationwide.

Future mobility scheme

There will be an element of surrendering the car for a period of time (of which hasn’t yet been published), and the idea behind the scheme is to “stimulate a long-term sustainable shift in travel behaviour”, in a bid to reduce pollution and congestion, although some environmental groups doubt that it will have an influence on air quality.

Around 100 people will take part in the scheme initially, and although the pilot stages will be tax-payer funded, it’s thought that if the scheme’s successful, funding will come from private companies, including bus and train operators, and perhaps electric-car clubs.

The pitfalls

Putting aside issues such as the length of time that you’ll need to surrender your car for, whether the vehicle will be removed from your possession, or how it will be stored if it is, we need to look at the bigger picture. This is the first scheme of its type where the motorist has been considered, where incentivisation has been used rather than underhand ‘green’ taxes.

John Seddon, head of transport & innovation at Coventry City Council views it as an update to the scrappage schemes that have been used in the past, but “rather than trading in an older car for a newer one, it is trading in the car for the ability to use other modes of transport”.

It should also be noted that it won’t cost you money (as it would to purchase a newer car), nor are you selling/scrapping or giving up your car permanently – you’ll still have an asset at the end of the period. Effectively what you’re getting is free public transport at the cost of giving up your car for some time.

Congestion & charging

There’s no denying that measures need to be put in place to ease the flow of traffic, and up until now, the responsibility (and therefore the costs) have been directed toward the individual motorist. The argument is that we should leave the cars at home, and use expensive & unreliable public transport – all while paying to park our cars at home.

If successful, the ‘paid to stop driving’ scheme is a complete about-turn in respect of giving up the car, it’s almost like we’re being asked nicely to stop, rather than being told that we will stop, and that’s a marked change in strategy from the government and local authorities and a much-needed one.

Of course, some details need to be clarified – does surrendering the car mean 24/7 car-free? Or just commuting into the city? Will the car remain in our care? What would happen in an emergency?

It’s been said that some anti-car campaigners may not like the idea of actually paying motorists not to use their car. Surely, if they’re as committed to being as green as they say, that’s a small price to pay for helping to reduce pollution, re-educate motorists and bring about a step-change in the reliance of individual transportation?

Brexit Protest and Direct Action Group (BDA), outraged by Prime Minister Theresa May’s negotiations, organised a series of ‘go slow’ protests on Friday ending in police prosecuting four pro-Brexit drivers.

The decision to push back the deadline for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union infuriated Brexiteer campaigners who, on Friday, attempted to cause chaos on rush-hour roads and ‘bring the country to its knees’.

Slow and furious

The protest occurred after news hit that Brexit wouldn’t happen until at least the 12th of April. Group organisers hoped that, by causing gridlock on motorways and A roads, the demonstrations would make sure the UK leaves the EU at the end of the month.

The police say they spoke to organisers of both protests beforehand and told them they must stay in the slow lane and not drive less than 45 mph. Inspector Simon Jenkinson said the force was ‘happy to facilitate’ the protests as long as they didn’t bring the roads to a standstill. Yet protesters drove as slow as 20 mph, occupied all lanes, and caused delays throughout the south-west, Hull, Lancashire, and parts of North Wales.

Video of the demonstration showed a slowdown on the M6 in Lancashire, with annoyed motorists trying to swerve past the slow drivers while honking their horns, yet a tweet by Highways England stated there had been a few issues but ‘nothing of any major impact’ and that everything was ‘running as usual’.

Devon and Cornwall’s forces said their officers stopped nine vehicles who ‘presented a risk to the road-using community’ and prosecuted the lead drivers of the convoys for careless and inconsiderate driving.

Members of the group are planning further such demonstrations throughout the country and claim they have hauliers prepared across the land.

Group organiser, Ian Charlesworth said they are planning a bigger event in London on the 29th of March — the same day as the planned ‘March To Leave’ demonstration in Parliament Square.

‘Come hell or high water’

Inspector Simon Jenkinson, from the Alliance Roads Policing Team, said the campaigners blocked both lanes of the A30 towards Cornwall and at least two lanes of the M5 northbound.

“We recognise the right to protest and make views clear but we will not tolerate careless and inconsiderate driving on our roads.”

“We engaged with organisers before the go-slow began, they ignored our advice to stay in lane one and limit speed to no less than 45 mph.”

Meanwhile, the protesters’ Twitter account stated:

“BDA group believe that our government should fulfil their manifesto and EU referendum pledge to exit the EU on 29th March with either an acceptable Withdrawal Agreement or WTO [The World Trade Organisation] managed exit.”

Organiser Ian Charlesworth, who said the protests could cause ‘serious gridlock’, assumed MPs and the Home Office would be ‘looking at it’ but added he didn’t know how effective the protests would be.

Mr Charlesworth said:

“The ultimate aim is to make sure, come hell or high water, that Britain leaves on March 29.”

The need for speed

Minimum speed limits keep traffic moving at a steady pace and may be mandatory where emergency services might have difficulty accessing, yet the UK seldom enforces minimum speed limits and many drivers have never seen a minimum speed limit sign—it’s a round blue sign with white numerals—but you can’t travel at any speed you like without breaking the law.

If police consider your slow driving to be a hazard to other road users, you may just get a verbal warning but, in more serious cases, you may find yourself charged with driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users. This might mean up to nine penalty points on your licence and a fine of up to £5,000. To prove you’re guilty of this offence, prosecutors must show that your driving inconvenienced another driver.

If you drive at slow speeds on motorways—and high-speed dual carriageways—you rely on drivers to realise that your car is travelling at a much lower speed than expected, which may cause abrupt braking or overtaking to avoid you and is even more dangerous for large vehicles that need more time to slow down or change lane.

Slow driving is also dangerous on single carriageways where overtaking is difficult and it’s common for motorists to become stressed and impatient whilst following a very slow vehicle and leads to the possibility of erratic driving and dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

One proposed method to tackle slow drivers is to introduce speed cameras focussed on slow speeds but drivers spotting these could speed up when they shouldn’t—on icy or wet roads, for example. So, while ‘slow-speed cameras’ would no doubt increase revenue, the chance is they’d increase the number of accidents on our roads, too.

What are your views on the Pro-Brexit protests? Was it a justified or selfish move? Are you affected by slow drivers? Tell us in the comments.

While the chaos surrounding Brexit continues on, the European Commission is pushing out regulations continuously, and the latest one means that from 2022 all new cars will have to have an Intelligent Speed Assistant (ISA) built in.

Like the article we wrote recently, Volvo is leading the way in this, as they have already started producing top speed limiters for al cars.

Amongst all of this, industry experts are raising concerns that these new speed limiters are actually unsafe.

EU regulations

Back in May 2018, the European Commission put forward a proposal to introduce a speed system that would use GPS and then digitally limit the speed of the car. Along with other safety measures, this was proposed as a way to reduce the 25,000 deaths a year on roads across Europe.

Some may be currently questioning the relevance of this article, given the current Brexit situation; however, the Vehicle Certification Agency stated that all new EU laws would be mirrored, regardless of any outcome.

Along with the ISA, the EU also released a list of all additional safety features that have to be included which are:

• Advanced emergency braking (cars, vans)
• Alcohol interlock installation facilitation (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
• Drowsiness and attention detection (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
• Distraction recognition / prevention (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
• Event (accident) data recorder (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
• Emergency stop signal (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
• Full-width frontal occupant protection crash test – improved seatbelts (cars and vans)
• Head impact zone enlargement for pedestrians and cyclists -safety glass in case of a crash (cars and vans)
• Intelligent speed assistance (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
• Lane keeping assist (cars, vans)
• Pole side-impact occupant protection (cars, vans)
• Reversing camera or detection system (cars, vans, trucks, buses)
• Tyre pressure monitoring system (vans, trucks, buses)
• Vulnerable road user detection and warning on the front and side of the vehicle (trucks and buses)
• Vulnerable road user improved direct vision from the driver’s position (trucks and buses)

A lot of these are already included in vehicles or would have been already, but some are more controversial than others.

The alcohol interlock installation, for example, will have to be fitted to all cars but will only affect those who have been convicted of drunk driving. Once their driving ban has been lifted, their car will have a breathalyser fitted for a set amount of time which they will have to use to get the car working, discouraging them from repeat offending. 12% of previous offenders will go on to drink drive again, and three out of ten high-risk offenders will go on to drink-drive a second or even third time.

Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska, responsible for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, said: “Every year, 25,000 people lose their lives on our roads. The vast majority of these accidents are caused by human error. We can and must act to change this. With the new advanced safety features that will become mandatory, we can have the same kind of impact as when the safety belts were first introduced. Many of the new features already exist, in particular in high–end vehicles. Now we raise the safety level across the board, and pave the way for connected and automated mobility of the future.”

Objections

Along with the Big Brother argument, industry experts such as the AA, have come out against some of the proposals, citing them as unsafe. In a statement to the Mail Online, Edmund King, AA president, said: “When it comes to Intelligent Speed Assistance the case is not so clear. The best speed limiter is the driver’s right foot and the driver should use it to do the right speed in the right situation.

The right speed is often below the speed limit, for example, outside a school with children around, but with ISA there may be a temptation to go at the top speed allowed which may not be appropriate.

Sometimes a little speed also helps to keep safe on the road, for example, overtaking a tractor on a country road or joining a motorway.

Dodgem cars are fitted with speed limiters but they still seem to crash.“

The concept of a car being able to stop you from driving over a certain limit seems certainly peculiar but could this perhaps being the slow introduction of autonomy? All of the new safety features introduced are more autonomous. Are we slowly being stripped of our freedom to drive?

What are drivers saying?

Last week, when we published our article on in-car monitoring systems, we had plenty of responses from members protesting the move to autonomy and big brother taking over. George Orwell’s 1984 is a frequent reference that people use to show the state the world is heading towards.

Surely the question here could be asked is “If autonomy saves lives, should we accept the eventuality of it?” No accurate statistics exist on the safety of autonomy vs humans but we know human error and misjudgement account for the majority of accidents and so the introduction of widespread autonomy in vehicles could potentially be a life-saving exercise.

Autonomy could save lives and also enable those who are house ridden to get back on the roads as the car can do a lot of the driving for them. The possibilities and applications are endless but it requires a careful balance of introduction and not overwhelming us all.

What do you think of the new laws? Are there any that raise concerns? Do you think autonomy is a good thing? Let us know below

It never rains but it pours … and Jaguar Land Rover must be breaking out their Sou’westers right about now; in January of this year, they announced 4,500 jobs were to go, the following month they posted record quarterly losses and more recently, it’s been found that a number of their vehicles don’t comply with stated emissions.

44,000 vehicles, all using the 2.0 litre engine (both petrol and diesel) have been found to be producing a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) than certified through the Vehicle Certification Agency, but this isn’t a new Volkswagen-style scandal, it was JLR themselves that found the problem and reported it.

Change in overall vehicle experience

Currently, the Jaguar Land Rover engineers are working on a fix, but it’s not straightforward – some models will need a software update and reprogram, other models will need mechanical work to help them comply, and it’s thought that some Range Rover Evoque models will also need new tyres.

A Jaguar Land Rover spokesman said “Vehicles are being rectified to ensure that the correct CO2 performance is dependably achieved. All modifications will be free of charge, and every effort will be made to minimise the inconvenience to our customers”.

However, there’s a final line missing from that quote, and it’s perhaps the most important; “Some owners may experience minor changes in the overall vehicle experience”.

Diesel-gate with Volkswagen

Of course, we’re all too familiar with the Volkswagen scandal; it’s perhaps this very issue that has highlighted car manufacturers “interpretation” of vehicle emissions and compliance, but what hasn’t been quite so widely publicised is the effects of the ‘fix’.

Around 41,000 UK Volkswagen owners are part of a class action against the manufacturer, claiming that the emissions fix has severely affected their car – starting difficulties, loss of power, weak acceleration, poor fuel consumption and mysterious rattles have all been noted since the fix. Could this be part of the “change in overall vehicle experience” that Jaguar Land Rover is hinting at?

Any automotive engineer with an understanding of fuelling will tell you that changing the fuelling will, of course, change how the vehicle behaves. The fact that diesel Volkswagens were so powerful compared to the competition obviously came at a price – that they couldn’t comply with legislation, and when they were de-tuned to comply, it created a different driving experience.

The JLR problem

Until it’s known just how serious the problem is, it’s hard to gauge the effect of any fix to the fuelling strategy may have.

We do know that JLR didn’t set out to cheat the Vehicle Certification Agency, it was through their own routine testing that they found a problem, so mechanically, the engines are designed to deliver an expected output with a set amount of fuel. This means that they haven’t been designed & engineered as higher performance engines.

This (in theory), should mean that minor changes are possible with a ‘re-map’ without having too much a detrimental effect on performance or general running. We also know that JLR has said that some affected models may need mechanical work – the assumption being that these have been engineered to deliver slightly higher performance levels, so in this case, it’s entirely possible that an owner would have a very different experience.

The models affected are all manufactured between 2016 – 2019, that use the 2.0 petrol and diesel engine, and include some models of the 2016 – 18 Land Rover Discovery & Discovery Sport, a number of the Range Rover Evoque, Sport and Velar and the Jaguar E-PACE, F-PACE, F-TYPE, XE and XF.

Legal obligation

If you think that your car may be one of the models affected, your local dealership will be in touch to confirm the recall, you don’t need to do anything right now. We’d also point out that until a specified fix has been issued, and the results are known, it may be worth waiting to see how other customers find the repair, should you find yourself on the wrong end of a poorly running car.

We’d expect the situation to be the same as the Volkswagen emissions repairs, with no legal obligation to have your car repaired. It’s possible that you’re entirely satisfied with how your vehicle runs in its current state, in which case, you may just be better off leaving it.

If you have any concerns regarding the fix, your vehicle or the regulations that it may be breaking, you can contact Jaguar Land Rover customer services on the following numbers:
Jaguar 0345 303 2303
Land Rover 0370 5000 500

Do you believe that JLR have acted fairly? Is this just another case of a manufacturer ‘playing the game’? Let us know in the comments.

With well over 6 million CCTV cameras in the UK, we Brits are accustomed to being watched. This is even more obvious when you’re a British driver, with recent news telling us authorities will use cameras to detect drivers using cycle lanes and mobile phones. Now, in-car technology is being developed that takes driver surveillance to a whole new level.

With in-car cameras, lasers, and radar to detect who you are and what you and your passengers are doing, car manufacturers can soon track your habits and behaviours—but does this potential for safer driving mean a dangerous lack of privacy?

The road ahead

Connected cars are nothing new. In 1996, General Motors launched the first connected car with ‘OnStar’ in some of their Cadillac models, designed to get emergency help to a car in an accident. The Cadillac CT6 already uses cameras to check the driver’s eyes for lack of attention and drowsiness and many other carmakers are following along with some of their models possessing similar functions. But what else can drivers expect to see soon?

BMW has developed what they call ‘Natural interaction’—gaze recognition along with improved gesture and voice recognition—for their iNEXT model, available from 2021. BMW says the gaze recognition allows motorists not just to control the car interior with their eyes, but the high-definition camera in the dashboard can tell what the driver is looking at outside, too. The manufacturer says drivers can look at a restaurant as they drive past and find out the opening hours, what’s on the menu, and even book a table.

And thanks to improvements in vertical-cavity-surface-emitting lasers (VCSEL), cameras might soon have the same technology as Apple’s FaceID software to display a variety of data of who is inside the car.

Cameras don’t work at their best in cramped areas, such as cars, because of objects—like seats—blocking the camera’s view. This is where radar works better.

Firms such as Texas Instruments are using millimetre-wave radar technology, which takes very detailed measurements because it uses such small wavelengths. Developers are working on various applications, including the ability to differentiate between males, females, and even dogs within a car.

Radar technology could detect the direction passengers face in self-driving cars—where occupants may face in various directions—so airbags and other passive safety systems can configure themselves in a crash. Careys has built two radar systems; with one measuring biometrics and health—such as respiration and heart rate—and another that counts the number of passengers and their positioning.

Vayyar and Brose are working together to get cars to detect obstructions outside the car by limiting how far the door can open. This will not only prevent drivers from having their cars dented by hitting walls, poles, etc. but will also protect cyclists from ‘dooring’.

In a heartbeat

Earlier this year, Google got the approval of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use millimetre-wave radar to work at higher power levels for their Project Soli. A microchip emits the radar and allows users to press a virtual button or turn a virtual dial by identifying fine finger gestures, which the chip then translates into commands resembling touches on a screen.

The FCC said the decision to provide a waiver for the project “will serve the public interest by providing for innovative device control features using touchless hand gesture technology,”.

B-Secur says everyone has a unique electrocardiograph (ECG) signature that technology can use to assess our condition while driving and even unlock our vehicles. The company is working on biometric technology that will place medical-grade ECG sensors inside car steering wheels to monitor the motorist’s health via their cardiac rhythm.

Dr Andrew Mitchell, Consultant Cardiologist, and advisor on the board for B-Secur said:

“Your car will only unlock for you, it will know when you’re alert and when you’re sleepy; your doctor or nurse will know with certainty who they are administering the medicine to; the insurance company will know for [sic] certainty who was driving the car at the time of the accident. The applications are limitless.”

‘No such thing as 100% safe’

No doubt these advances in automotive technology will provide many benefits to drivers and other road users, but they come with concerns; one of which is privacy.

Consider the information your connected car will collect: It will have access to your personal information, location, calendar; shopping and driving habits; whether you speed, forget to use your seat belt, the state of your health, your email content—and much more.

Sharing so many of your personal details has the potential of leaving you vulnerable to unwanted advertisers and hackers—or perhaps you might receive a fixed penalty notice or parking fine without a police officer or traffic warden in sight!

Yet, most of us own a smartphone these days, which means giving up a measure of privacy (think of Google Maps needing to know our location to work at its best) and the same applies to connected cars. When we enable and use certain car functions, we decide that the value we derive from the car’s software outweighs our privacy concerns.

Managing Director and Vice President of ABI Research, Dominique Bonte, said:

“Everything that hits the Internet is not 100% safe. There are cyber-attacks all the time.”

“There’s no such thing as a 100% safe network. So as soon as something gets connected, there’s a risk that someone could get hands on that data.”

But privacy is not the only concern; there could be fatal consequences if, for example, a hacker can download malicious software to the computer responsible for automatic braking. Only when these ‘cars of the future’ are part of day-to-day life will we understand the full repercussions of their use—both positive and negative.

Even today, Volvo released a set of new features for all cars from 2021 to improve the safety of drivers. One of these is an in-car monitoring system, and we’ve attached the video below for you to watch.

How do you feel about your car tracking and monitoring you? Do you already use any of the technology mentioned? Tell us your views in the comments.

£2,400,000, £2.4m, two million four hundred thousand … however you write it, it’s not an insignificant number, and yet that’s how much profit is being made each day through parking charges. Note the word profit, not revenue.

And despite that, some motorists are facing increases of up to 230% to park their vehicles from next month. The RAC Foundation are predicting that profits will clear £1bn for the year 2019/20.

That’s before we get to the whole ‘parking at work’ issue, and heaven help you if you happen to drive a diesel that’s a few years old. ‘Persecuted’ comes to mind, as does ‘cash cow’ and ‘stealth tax’.

Record profit, part II

Back in November 2018, we wrote an article about councils making record profits from parking, fines and charges for motorists daring to enter a city centre, we also noted that one in ten shops were empty, footfall in city centres fell by around 1.6% and out of town shopping was on the increase by a similar amount.

With that said, there was an element of at least a vague attempt by councils to assuage the concerns of the pro-motoring groups by keeping evening & Sunday rates lower; they couldn’t claim congestion was a problem, nor was there a need to limit church-goers from entering the city en masse. But come April, all pretence of ‘fairness’ ends.

Across the country, a number of councils are already planning on millions of pounds worth of extra revenue generation for the coming year and beyond, Edmund King, president of the AA says: “Some councils are already budgeting to make millions of pounds more from motorists, on top of the millions they already get, by increasing parking charges, extending restricted parking zones, enforcing new bus lanes and looking for new opportunities to catch drivers”.

Councillors are insisting that higher fees are necessary because of major budget cuts from central government, as well as “the need to tackle congestion”. Perhaps that’s the definitive proof that the motorist is seen as the answer to any budgetary shortfalls.

Transportation spending

Analysis from a money comparison site has shown that revenues from parking charges have increased by around £170m in the last five years, currently sitting around £867m per year, and yet the same analysis tells us that councils are spending approximately £400m less on road improvements than they were five years ago.
So where is that money going?

Some councils are on the verge of bankruptcy; in the early part of 2018, Northamptonshire County Council effectively went bankrupt, and a survey by the Local Government Information Unit thinktank found that typically, 8 out of 10 councils were gravely concerned by their finances.

On a completely unrelated note, Northampton council are trebling evening car parking charges, but it isn’t all bad news, Councillor Martin Tett, transport spokesman for the Local Government Association says that councils are on the side of the motorist and shoppers.

Residential parking

Perhaps the most significant blow to motorists is an upsurge in paying for their right to park at home, and some councils are looking to maximise what they feel is acceptable; Hampshire, Reading, Cambridge, Brighton and Exeter are all looking to raise residential parking prices, with Hampshire being the most … optimistic … with up to a 230% increase.

Residents of Camden should feel grateful that they’re only looking at a 70% increase in permit fees, and that in itself tells you that something is seriously wrong. When motorists are feeling relieved that a 70% increase in what amounts to an absurd stealth tax is the better option, you have to wonder just what happens next?

Indeed, residents in Romsey paying £50 per year to park at home doesn’t sound like the ending of the world, but an increase from £15 is significant, and once residents get used to £50, will that rise again by the same percentage? £50 becomes closer to £170.

The need for a car has never been greater; high parking costs have pushed traffic away from city centres, city stores raise their prices in a bid to survive lower footfall, shoppers can’t afford to spend more than necessary on their weekly shopping so drive out of town to their nearest supermarket where prices are cheaper. The statistics bear that out; there is no need to manipulate facts to give a pro-car viewpoint.

Yes, there are a number of people who agree that cars should be made to pay for air pollution, for damaging their environment, for bringing pestilence to the world, but a world without motorised personal transportation or the ability to deliver goods to the far corners of East Sussex or the wilds of the Highlands doesn’t make sense either. All we need is a balance.

Do you think this is just another shot at the motorist? Another stealth tax dressed up in green legislation? Or is it genuinely a good thing? Let us know in the comments.