“Always eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you” – one of the lesser-known quotes from the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which ‘Big Brother’ is always watching. Despite being seventy years old this year, the whole “Big Brother is watching you” has never been apter, with the number of speed cameras dotted around.

A raft of new speed cameras introduced in the south-west has the ability to monitor your speed, check your seatbelt, detect mobile phone usage or see whether you’re eating, smoking or drinking, and it could lead to prosecution. These new cameras have been nicknamed ‘The Yellow Vultures’.

While we’re used to seeing average speed check cameras throughout various locations, these new cameras are the next generation, they use infrared tech and high-definition, which means that day or night, they have the ability to catch you unawares.

The legality

While smoking, eating or drinking while driving isn’t actually illegal (currently), there is an argument for distracted driving; a study by Leeds University found that motorists consuming food while driving were on average, 44% slower than usual. But if you were found to be speeding while distracted, you could face a charge of careless driving, along with the speeding conviction.

One further point is that these new breed of cameras are much more accurate, which in theory, means that when we reported back in August that Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, Britain’s Road Policing Chief wanted to fine motorists for breaching the speed limit by just 1mph, he may just get his way.

Currently, the National Police Chiefs Council guidelines recommend a 10+2 limit, that is 10% over, plus 2mph – 35mph in a thirty limit, 57mph in a fifty and so on, but that really is only a courtesy, set in the days where speedo accuracy wasn’t top of the list for the manufacturer; most speedometers were set from the factory to under-read by around 5% purely for this reason.

It’s also worth pointing out that the old ‘lane change’ trick won’t work either – gone are the days that you could confuse an average speed check camera by swapping lanes, or by riding a motorcycle with only a rear-facing number plate. The yellow vultures are capable of spotting every indiscretion, committed by any vehicle.

Spotting the cameras

At the moment, the new breed of super-camera only has limited geography – based in the south-west on the Gdynia Way heading into Plymouth and the A38 at Haldon Hill, but if proven successful you can almost guarantee that they’ll be rolled out nationwide.

The camera unit itself is similar enough to existing average speed cameras, but the tell-tale is that they’ll be preceded by a bank of LED equipment and sensors 20 metres before the first camera, even so, you’ll need sharp eyesight to know when you’re entering a zone.

The reality is that the cameras are there for speeding, and while they’re technically capable of spotting things like missing seatbelts, eating and smoking, it’s unlikely to lead to prosecution unless you commit an act of careless driving due to it. However, they’re also capable of spotting mobile phone usage, and that can only be a good thing.

What seems to be an unknown is whether the cameras are constantly scanning for illegal or dangerous driving, or whether they only activate due to speeding.

Avoidance

From what we understand, it seems a genuine effort to place the emphasis on safety first rather than raise revenue, but this could just be the tip of the iceberg, the trial run before understanding just what the real-world capabilities are.

As we reported last week, slow doesn’t necessarily mean safe, but it seems that on the whole, anti-speeding measures are generally accepted, where appropriate. As to whether a fine for eating a sandwich on the go, or staying caffeinated would be quite so well received remains to be seen.

It would seem that since ‘speed’ cameras were overtaken by ‘safety’ cameras (meaning fewer locations), the battle has been on to justify further camera usage, perhaps in a bid to minimise loss of revenue, or it could just be that the UK is in need of safety education when it comes to driving?

Driving within the speed limit is clearly the best way to avoid prosecution, and perhaps you’ll be doing your digestive system good by not having a three-course meal ‘on the go’, but then perhaps you should be allowed to choose for yourself.

One of our partners, Drivesmart, has a speed camera detector which they’ve given PetrolPrices members an exclusive 28% off, bringing the price down to £129.99. The Drivesmart Alpha has been developed by experts in the speed camera detection business, having brought out their first detector over 10 years ago when they were the first pioneers to offer free database updates. You can buy that here.

What do you think of the new breed of safety camera? Is it too much? Let us know in the comments.

As you’ve no doubt heard from an old sage, speed limits are just that; a limit, not a target, but apart from very few locations, there’s nothing about minimum speed limits (marked with a circular blue sign with white numerals).

Many drivers believe that ‘slow is safe’ regardless of conditions or traffic, but recent figures released by the Department for Transport show that road crash casualties due to excessively low speeds increased by almost a third in 2017; 175 injuries and two fatalities.

The AA warns us that “driving like a snail can be every bit as dangerous as driving too fast”, they also go on to say that perhaps part of the problem may be the record number of elderly drivers on the roads – almost five million over 70, with more than 100,000 over 90.

The effect of driving slowly

This isn’t the driving style associated with hypermiling, being courteous or even safe motoring; driving excessively slowly brings further hazards – bringing confusion to other drivers, the possibility of forcing erratic manoeuvres through frustration, slowing traffic up, even cases of road rage.

A poll by Hyundai revealed that someone driving too slowly is the 7th most common reason why drivers swear when behind the wheel and that nearly 1/3 of all respondents have had a near miss caused by someone driving too slowly. 60% of motorists say their stress levels raise when stuck behind someone driving too slowly, and about half of them are tempted to undertake.

It’s deemed that serious that the Police could charge you with Inconsiderate or Careless Driving, the maximum penalty for which is a £5,000 fine and 9 penalty points. As further evidence as to just how dimly it’s looked upon, driving too slowly is the tenth most common reason for a driving test failure, with examiners viewing it as a lack of confidence or skill.

While there are some exceptions, a national minimum speed limit has never been introduced, although some motoring organisations believe that a minimum limit could have a beneficial effect on traffic flow, although in reality that seems unlikely – where there is a minimum limit in place currently, it’s low, usually 20 mph.

What can you do?

Driving slowly can be viewed as a great stress-buster, it also helps to save your licence from any speeding problems, and with no safety judgement or discretion from ‘safety’ cameras, it’s no surprise that some motorists are taking that option. It’s when they take it too far that it becomes a problem.

As with most incidents of poor driving, the best advice is to distance yourself from it, and while the option to slow down further may not be that viable, you should look to ways of clearing it, perhaps by taking another route (where possible). It’s been shown that middle-lane hoggers on motorways are a particular threat or nuisance.

There is no easy solution to the problem – introducing a minimum limit could further exacerbate traffic problems, and of course, policing it would be difficult, that’s before we get to dwindling police numbers.
It’s worth noting that some safety campaigners believe that “speed limits are rarely safe to travel at”, and their advice is to “slow right down” in all conditions, on all roads. Perhaps it’s these campaigners that are part of the problem?

Speed kills

While understanding that excessive speed is indeed dangerous, there is an argument for appropriate speed, and that argument should work both ways; lower speeds don’t necessarily mean appropriate speed. With that said, there is a disproportionate divide between the two when it comes to statistics – 175 injuries attributable to excessively low speed, opposed to nearly 20,000 injuries for speeding.

Defining ‘low speed’ is difficult, what constitutes a risk to some motorists, may be acceptable to others, the definition of Inconsiderate Driving is that the accused must have driven in a manner that inconvenienced others, whether that results in an accident or not. What this means, in reality, is that any driver accused of such behaviour should be able to give a reasonable account as to why they were driving in such a manner.

It’s clear that this is a traffic violation that causes frustration and anger, but perhaps driver education is better than punishment; with speed awareness courses being deemed appropriate for motorists caught just over the limit, why not introduce a course for dangerously low-speed driving?

Have you been stuck behind someone driving too slowly? Do you feel that there is an argument for minimum speed limits with enforcement cameras? Or is this just another tax? Let us know in the comments.

In a new report by the National Insitute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), they called for all new roads to prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers. While some industry chiefs agree with this idea, others are quick to criticise, claiming that NICE are catering to the “Lycra army.”

The proposals

NICE is currently asking for responses to a consultation on their report to improve roads for pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers. Some of their proposals include restricting vehicular access on certain roads, widening footpaths to make way for pedestrians, getting pupils to walk a mile a day and much more.

The proposals by NICE have been suggested as a drastic way to aim to reduce obesity, lower toxic air pollution and ease pressure on the NHS. They believe that their proposals are essential in lowering the nationwide obesity crisis.

Street and road planners have been encouraged to make roads as convenient as possible for cyclists and pedestrians, and make motorists the lowest priority on roads. NICE recommend widening pavements in order to allow for pedestrians in wheelchairs to safely navigate the pavement.

Smaller things such as asking employers to hold meetings standing up, encouraging staff to use the stairs, and asking employers to provide subsidised gym memberships and showers at work to encourage staff to cycle in. While these are small things, NICE hopes these can improve the overall health of people.

Professor Gillian Leng, the deputy chief executive and director of health and social care at NICE, said: “Getting people to be more physically active by increasing the amount they walk or cycle has the potential to benefit both the individual and the health system.

As a society, we are facing a looming Type 2 diabetes crisis, which is in part caused by people not exercising enough. We need more people to change their lifestyle and to take more exercise.

People can feel less safe when they walk or cycle compared with when they drive. We’ve got to change this.

So asking planners to prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and those who use public transport when roads are built or upgraded can ensure they are safe, attractive and designed to encourage people to get out from behind their wheel.”

Concern from the industry

As cited by the RAC, new road building is scarce and often happens in housing estates where there is limited space to play with anyway. Housing estates are not often built near facilities such as doctors surgeries, supermarkets and similar, instead of in larger open spaces, so people will still need to travel in cars to get to these places.

Howard Cox of motorists’ group FairFuelUK said: “Yet another stupid out of touch edict. What planet are these so-called experts on?

The whole economy depends on road transport. A three-piece suite can’t be delivered on a bicycle. Of course, roads should be designed to cater for all users, but not by stifling the highest-taxed drivers of cars, vans and trucks in the world, for the sake of the Lycra army.”

Government response

Back in April 2017, the government published a Cycling and Walking strategy, which set out their aims to increase the number of people cycling and walking every day. The government wants to double the number of cycling or walking ‘stages’ by 2025 They define a stage as anytime someone is using a new method of transport in a journey, such as cycling to the station before getting a train or walking to meet someone before lift sharing.

In November 2018, the government went on to publish outcomes of a consultation based on their plans, and created the following points:

• Review the existing guidance in the Highway Code to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians
• Invest £100,000 to support police enforcement by developing a national back-office function to handle dash-cam footage
• Improve enforcement against parking in cycle lanes
• Appoint a cycle and walking champion
• Encourage local authorities to increase investment in cycling and walking infrastructure to 15% of total transport infrastructure spending
• Engage with cycling and walking bodies to develop a behaviour change campaign

And now, in the present day, the government are committed to encouraging people to walk shorter journeys where at all possible, wschool-agedn to school and encourage older children to cycle to school. 90% of primary school age children live less than 15 minutes walk from their school and three-quarters of secondary school aged children live a 15-minute cycle from their house.

In response to the NICE statement, a Department for Transport spokesman said: ‘DfT guidance is crystal clear that street design should explicitly consider pedestrians and cyclists first. Our Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy safety review, published last year, set out further measures to improve safety, including a review of the Highway Code.’

Do you think that motorists should be the lowest priority on our streets? How often do you make a walkable journey in the car? Let us know below

Car theft is something none of us wants to experience. If faced with a space where our car once was, the first thing we’d do is call the police—and hope this would either bring our car back or, failing that, discover the perpetrator and bring them to justice. Yet, an astonishing 75% of vehicle thefts are remaining unsolved as our police struggle to find the criminals responsible.

This information comes after an analysis of Home Office crime data for 44 police forces, including the British Transport Police. The study also found that the current level of vehicle theft is higher than it’s been in years.

Thieves left unpunished

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published the figures from the Home Office crime outcomes data for theft or ‘unauthorised taking’ of a motor vehicle and only 4% of cases resulted in charges or summonses being issued. Together, the 44 police forces logged 106,334 offences—the highest figure for the same period since 2009/10.

The analysis found West Midlands Police had closed 91% of recorded vehicle thefts without a suspect being identified, while the Metropolitan Police closed 85% of cases of recorded vehicle thefts for the same reason. The City of London Police were the force with the highest percentage of closed cases, at 96%. In fact, every police force except five forces closed over half of all cases without identifying a suspect.

So why are criminals responsible for three-quarters of all reported stolen cars going unpunished? Police chiefs say it’s due to an increased workload and fewer police officers, which mean they have to prioritise cases with a realistic chance of prosecution.

Criminals given ‘a green light’

The national percentage of vehicle thefts rose by 1% from the previous year to 77%. Over the same period, the number of police officers in England and Wales fell to 122,404 – the lowest number since comparable records began in 1996. Added to this challenge is the increasing number of complex and difficult offences police forces must investigate, such as rape and other violent crime.

Have car thieves become wise to not only the nation’s squeezed police resources but to modern car security, too? Simon Williams, RAC Media Relations Manager thinks so. He said:

“This is a sign that thieves have found ways around car security systems and have ways of selling vehicles on with little or no fear of being caught.

“The fact fewer suspects are being identified is very worrying and no doubt a symptom of the declining number of police officers and the resulting reduction in time that can be dedicated to investigating these crimes.”

Home Office statistics showed an overall increase in the total police workforce, but this number accounted for staff and not police officers, which decreased from the year before, along with Police Community Support Officers, special constables, and officers in ‘front-line roles’.

Labour politician Yvette Cooper MP, said:

“Too many investigations are closing without suspects being identified and we are hearing increasing reports of the police being too overstretched to investigate.

“Police forces are under immense pressure with rising serious and violent crime and changing patterns of crime alongside cuts in the numbers of officers and PCSOs. These figures suggest that investigations into volume crimes are now being hit. Failing to identify suspects gives criminals a green light to re-offend.”

Protect your property

So, if getting your vehicle back or hoping to see a thief punished is unlikely to happen, the best way to protect yourself from car theft is to work on prevention. Here are steps you can take to keep your car safe:

Double-check you’ve locked your car and beware of thieves who use ‘jammer’ devices to disrupt the signal between the fob and the car, leaving it unlocked and vulnerable to theft. You can do this by putting it in a tin box, and stow it safely in a draw.

Wherever you park, turn your car wheels, as thieves will avoid vehicles that take more effort and time to move. Use a driveway if you have one—thieves will favour cars further from houses—and always drive in rather than reverse in and out again. Try to use car parks with security patrols and/or CCTV, and park close to other cars.

To reduce the risk of carjacking in slow-moving traffic or a traffic jam, wherever possible, close your windows, lock your doors and hide any valuables.

The best way to secure your vehicle is with a tracker. Although this won’t prevent theft, it increases the chance of the car being recovered by the police. If you don’t have any car security, make fitting an immobiliser the priority. Car thieves avoid cars with visible devices and deterrents such as stickers warning of alarms and trackers. Any alarm is good but factory-fitted ones are the most secure and may also lower the cost of your car insurance.

Use a sturdy lock for the steering wheel, pedals or gearstick, and get your car’s registration number etched onto your car windows. These old-fashioned deterrents are making a comeback in our digital age.

You risk getting both a fine and your car stolen if you leave your car unattended with the engine idling. Whenever you leave the car, switch off the engine and lock the doors.

Never leave your keys unattended in public and when you’re at home, make sure your keys are out of sight and out of reach—and don’t be one 96% of motorists at risk of having their car stolen using a ‘relay attack’. Never take your keys upstairs or hide them in the bedroom though—it’s better to let a determined car thief have access to your vehicle rather than put yourself or your family at risk.

Have you ever had your car stolen? What was the outcome? What measures do you take to secure your vehicle against thieves? Tell us in the comments.

We wanted to get some numbers on the savings and benefits that you get from buying and owning an electric vehicle. That’s why we’ve heavily researched into electric vehicles, and the industries surrounding them to see what needs to change for government targets to happen. We haven’t just looked at power and the design itself, we’ve looked at insurance, repairs and more.

What we were looking for

We realised that something in the insurance industry wasn’t right. Insurance companies hadn’t taken into account how much safer electric vehicles were compared to combustion engines, as their high torque (we’ll explain this later) allows them to manoeuvre around potential hazards quicker. We went around and got some insurance quotes for an average person, as well as repair costs, costs of filling up, longevity, second-hand value and so much more.

We’ve compiled all of these costs together to provide you with a comprehensive review of whether electric cars are worth the money at the moment for a standard motorist, and also analysed what needs to change in the industry to meet government targets by 2040.

Insurance costs

• Social and single place of work
• 8000 annual mileage
• Drives in peak times
• Same address
• Employed
• 43-year-old female
• Clean licence
• £500 excess
• Non telematics policies
• Kept on driveway

Here’s the cars and their quotes, listed with the provider as well

There’s a large discrepancy between the Kia Soul and the Kia Soul EV. Same size, same make of car only the Kia Soul insurance was £274.60, and the Kia Soul EV was £307.60. The cars are the same size and shape and the lower horsepower, and higher torque on the EV make it safer in real life as it has a smaller engine.

Even though it is an electric vehicle and therefore has more expensive parts to replace or maintain, the lower risk small engine size means that a considerable amount should have been knocked off the price. If there is an issue with the battery, then the warranty covers it for ten years or 100,000 miles, up to 70% degradation. The 70% degradation means that the warranty only covers the repairs if the battery capacity is less than 70%.

These quotes are all for cars of a similar technical spec regarding power and capability, even though one of the cars was combustion and the other electric.

Matt Oliver, spokesperson for GoCompare Car Insurance, said: “It’s easy to assume that electric cars are futuristic technology that’s simply unaffordable for the average household. It’s still early days for electric car technology, and you’ll find fewer car insurers offering cover on these vehicles. That’s why it’s so important to compare insurance premiums for electric cars so that you can find the best price possible, as fewer insurers covering electric vehicles, means less competition and higher premiums, so you might have to pay more than you would for a standard car.”

One thing that PetrolPrices wondered was due to the higher torque in electric vehicles, were insurance companies seeing the high numbers and placing a higher price. For those who don’t understand torque, the simplest way to explain it is the pull that you feel when you accelerate sharply on a car. For a more detailed explanation, have a look here.

The higher the torque, the quicker it is able to accelerate and therefore surely it would be quicker to maneuver out of harm’s way. Electric cars also have a much lower top speed, with most sitting around 80 mph meaning that the risks associated with higher speeds simply don’t happen in an electric vehicle. The list price of vehicles may be what is driving up these costs, but the massive difference in price between the Mercedes, which has a list price starting at £80,000 and the Tesla, which starts at £90,000 is larger than the price difference between the Kia Soul and the Kia Soul EV, which have a price difference of the same spread, £10,000.

The repair industry

One of our partners, WhoCanFixMyCar.com worked with us to help understand the electric car industry in terms of repairs. One interesting point that was picked up was that because the knowledge in the industry is unknown, the mechanical engineers within the industry are struggling to repair some electric cars as the whole structure of a combustion car is completely different to an electric vehicle.

Craig Stein the owner of Steins Garage, winner of the Best Garage in Scotland 2016 said “Car’s are developing quicker than some garages can keep up with and it will important that the right training is put in place over the next few years otherwise the price difference between fixing an electric car and a combustion engine car might actually put people off buying electric.”

There’s almost no knowledge of an approximate cost for any repair as one garage may have done a fix before, but most of the time due to the lack of training and knowledge there is a higher cost than anticipated due to the parts, the labour and also the time taken to look into the problem.

Al Mia, owner of Autowerke Garage, finalist in the Best Garage of London 2017, brought up a point about the Teslas: “The Tesla Model x 100D and Tesla Model S 100D spend much more time in the garage that most cars as the time it takes to get a new parts is longer than almost every other car model. This is because there are only a few distribution centres in the UK. Furthermore, if the part is not in stock, it will have to be ordered from the factory in California and flown to the UK, extending the delay further.” For combustion car parts, a simple trip to the local distributor solves all issues as most cars use similar parts, for example a BMW might use a Ford clutch, and a Renault could have a Citroen indicator.

With Tesla cars, all the parts are specially made for Teslas only, and while they are lovely, if not premium, it costs more to replace than a standard part. If something goes badly wrong with the battery, a specialist Tesla crew is sent out as the battery could potentially be too dangerous for a standard engineer to deal with. As seen above the insurance for a Tesla is pretty high, and this is probably one of the main factors of that.

Kyle Burke, owner of Eagle Autos, winner of the Best Garage in London 2017 said “There are a lot more electric cars on the road than there were only a couple of years ago which means we have had to adapt and learn about repairing new components. The way an electric car is put together is different from a combustion-engined car, which means some garages might charge significantly more money for labour as they need more time to figure out how to make the fix.”

Overall other experts in the repair industry have highlighted to us that the training and knowledge of electric car fixes is lacking and people are looking to encourage and expand their knowledge but with more and more car companies announcing new electric models and designs everyday the car manufacturers are striding ahead of the rest of the industry to try and validate themselves as being part of the ‘electric movement’ but sadly the repair industry is struggling to keep up.

Charging vs filling up

For this comparison, we chose to look at the cost per mile for charging a car vs the cost per mile for filling up a car with petrol. We chose a Renault Zoe vs a Renault Clio for this one and looked at the cost of charging at home per mile, the cost of charging publicly per mile and finally the cost per mile on petrol.

To charge the Renault Zoe at home to full charge overnight, the cost per mile is 4.2p compared to around 12p per mile on public chargers, according to data from WhatCar?. Taking a price of 121.3ppl, the cost to fill up would be 10.4p a mile for a Renault Clio. While you’re saving a considerably large amount for overnight charging for charging a Renault Zoe, if you need to fill up on the road it could be costing you a lot more.

With electric, the price shouldn’t change too much, and you can be fairly sure of a consistent price year round, but with petrol the price changes almost daily, and if the price of oil goes up then you can see the effect this has all around.

Another issue in this peripheral is the availability of electric chargers. With 9000 devices covering 5,500 spots, the availability of charging where you need it is not at its full potential yet. There are petrol stations spread across the length and breadth of the country but not yet for EV charging points.

Tax, grants and charges

Electric vehicles are exempt from VED tax unless they have a list price of over £40,000 at which it is £310 a year for five years. After that, there is no more VED tax.

On the other hand, diesels that emit more CO2 are required to pay higher tax based on their emissions ratings. The Renault Clio, which has a CO2 emission of 160 CO2 g/km, first-year road tax is £160 for a single 12-month payment, and after that, it is £140 for a single 12-month payment.

So, is it worth it?

The car manufacturing industry is moving at a faster pace than the peripherals can keep up. The car service industry is struggling to understand all the new cars and parts are few and far between. Labour costs are more because the build of an EV is completely different to a combustion car.

Insurance premiums are higher because of the numbers associated with electric vehicles, yet the less risks associated with EV’s should be lower. Insurance companies should review their policies on insuring electric vehicles and see whether the industry is fair towards them.

Yet, despite all this, it seems that the attraction of electric has not decreased yet, people are still interested in the lower running costs and the lack of VED. If you have an electric car for 4 years your running costs will be lower, our example case of the Kia Soul EV was £2,062.40 for 4 years costs whereas the Kia Soul was £6,097.40. However taking into consideration the initial list price, the Kia Soul EV is £25,995 for the entry level model, with the Kia Soul priced at £14,525 for the same model spec as the EV. At the moment, combustion engines have a lower depreciation after 4 years, with the Kia Soul at 45% and the Kia Soul EV at 63%. These values are an approximate and are based on 2018 models, but even so the depreciation shows how much the value of electric cars go down.

Electric has a future, but whether it is affordable for most people in the present is not attainable at the moment. Even with all the government help and advice, the UK is simply not ready for electric vehicles. The infrastructure of millions of electric cars charging at the same time has the potential to push pressure onto the electricity generators which could very easily lead to a national crisis.

What needs to change is for electric cars to become cheaper initially but also for the longevity of them to be understood. Hyundai won’t give out the battery replacement cost because they believe their batteries will last forever. Most combustion cars last 16 years before they are scrapped, and while electric has not been around for long enough to give a fair judgement, it is forecast that they will be able to run for a lot longer.