A new pollution charge, expected to affect one million people across large areas of London from next year, is causing anger and worry for motorists; directed at the man behind the new tax—London Mayor, Sadiq Khan.

From the 8th of April 2019, an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) will run in Central London and — from the 25th of October 2021 — will expand to include the inner London area surrounded by the North and South Circular roads, meaning vehicles driving inside the area must satisfy new, stricter emissions standards; or pay a daily charge of £12.50.

£1.5 billion a year

The government will enforce the ULEZ based on the declared emissions of the vehicle rather than the age but, cars liable to pay the ULEZ charge are petrol cars registered before 2005 and diesel cars registered before September 2015.

Transport for London encourages motorists to drive a vehicle that satisfies the new emissions standards instead of paying the charge, yet they will receive up to £1.5billion a year from the £12.50 daily charge—six times more than the £230million collected from the Congestion Charge alone.

The charge—which will replace the T-Charge and will run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—will also affect owners of vans, motorcycles, and larger vehicles, including ambulances and fire engines. The ULEZ charge will be on top of the Congestion Charge and Low Emission Zone (LEZ) charge, and there won’t be any discount for residents.

Transport for London’s ‘integrated impact assessment’ predicts that around 565,000 cars and 276,000 vans registered in the capital will be liable for the ULEZ charge. Add HGVs and minicabs to the total number of vehicles and that number could increase to one million; unless an online petition, calling for a halt to the ULEZ expansion, succeeds.

‘Filthy and shameful’

The ULEZ charge came into being after studies showed that the air pollution caused by motor vehicles in the UK costs the NHS £6 billion a year, with a £650 million bill in London.

Officials believe the expanded ULEZ zone will mean reduced pollution across the whole of London and, by 2021, over 100,000 Londoners will no longer live in areas with illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter.

In June of this year, coinciding with the start of an investigation into how air pollution reduction strategies affect the health of children in London and Luton, Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan said:

“Tackling London’s lethal air and safeguarding the health of Londoners requires bold action.

“Air pollution is a national health crisis and I refuse to stand back as thousands of Londoners breathe in air so filthy that it shortens our life expectancy, harms our lungs and worsens chronic illness.

“I promised hard-hitting measures to tackle our shameful air pollution and today City Hall is confirming the next stage of our plans to expand the ultra-low emission zone up to the North and South Circular roads.”

Yet expanding the ULEZ into residential areas within the North and South Circular causes concern for RAC Public Affairs Manager, Nicholas Lyes, who said:

“Residents and small businesses within this area now have just three years to become compliant with the Mayor’s emission standards.

“This means many now face the daunting challenge of having to spend substantial amounts of money on a newer vehicle or face a daily charge of £12.50 to use their vehicles from October 2021.

“Motorists currently have no quick and easy means of knowing for certain what Euro emissions standard their car, or one they are looking to buy, meets–so it is absolutely vital that a central database is developed as quickly as possible.”

Mr Lyes also said the ULEZ expansion will most affect those from low-income backgrounds and those who work in roles such as hospitality and depend on using a car at night when public transport is not always available.

Coming to an area near you?

To see if the £12.50 charge will apply to your vehicle, use the ULEZ vehicle checker. If you’re caught driving through the zone without paying the daily fee, and with a vehicle not satisfying the emission standards, you’ll face a penalty charge of £160 (reduced to £80 if paid within 14 days).

If you’re looking for ways to avoid the ULEZ charge, officials suggest that, instead of paying the charge, people either walk, cycle, use public transport, rent a ULEZ-exempt vehicle from a car club, fit emission-reducing technology to their cars, buy an electric vehicle; or one that meets the ULEZ emissions standard.

Despite ULEZ only affecting London, there’s nothing to stop something similar happening across the UK. In fact, some councils are already planning their own emissions-based charges. With this in mind, cars not meeting the stricter emissions standards may experience a large drop in resale value.

Across the water, our French cousins—donned in the yellow vests that all cars in France must carry by law—have been rioting against fuel tax increases. With Gareth Bacon, leader of the Conservative Party in the London Assembly likening ULEZ to the poll tax, could he be right when he inferred that the mayor might experience his own ‘yellow vest’ moment once people realise they’ll pay up to £4,000 more each year to drive their cars?

What’s your view on the ULEZ? With the scandalous air pollution levels; do you welcome the charge? Will the ULEZ affect you? Share your views in the comments.

For some drivers, parking on the pavement comes as second nature. For others, it’s a complete nuisance. Now new research reveals the UK has a near perfect 50/50 split on the issue. Half the country thinks that we should ban pavement parking while the other thinks we should allow it.

Research from YourParkingSpace shows that 1 in 10 drivers park daily on the pavement which equates to about 3 million a day leading to the government potentially planning to act and create a nationwide ban on pavement parking.

Change in law

Back in 1974 when the Road Traffic Act was created, pavement parking was made illegal and never enacted. This was mainly due to high contention from multiple organisations and pressure from citizens; it was ultimately repealed in 1991 and pavement parking, aside from a few spots namely London and other major cities.

Now over 40 years later, the Scottish Government has under their new Transport bill allowed local governments to fine for pavement parking. Along with some areas in London, at the minute these are the only places one cannot park on the pavement.

However, new research from YourParkingSpace hints at a nationwide ban on pavement parking that could be enacted by the Government, something which divides the country fairly evenly.

Blocking pavement space

Pavement parking can cause major issues for those who are disabled, have a pram or are blind. The charity Guide Dogs for the Blind says that 90% of their members tell them, above everything else, pavement parking is the biggest physical obstacle they face in the street.

On the other hand, organisations such as the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) have come forward to say that a blanket ban would not be successful, but instead a middle ground of having a minimum pavement width and assigned parking spots on the pavement.

In a slightly different light, people such as postal or delivery services, meal on wheels drivers and so many more could be easily affected by this. Their need for a quick spot to park, drop an item and leave shortly after is where a blanket ban could get confusing. Similarly, for emergency services, they need the closest spot possible to the incident and if a pavement ban is in place this could make it more complicated for the above.

The ABD released a statement about the topic, along with their suggestion “…We suggest that all that is needed on most residential streets is a minimum one-metre walkway. That’s equivalent to a double buggy or a mobility scooter. We don’t object to councils dealing with those who seriously obstruct. Therefore we oppose default blanket bans, but should it come about, urge the “middle ground” solution outlined above – with a statutory requirement for councils to provide pavement parking provision on any road where it is requested and/or achievable while still allowing that minimum one-metre width for pedestrian passage.”

Nationwide split

Not unlike other topics, the UK is completely split on pavement parking with half the country thinking it should be allowed and the other half finding it completely awful and thinking a harsh ban would be good for us all.

Harrison Woods, managing director at YourParkingSpace.co.uk, said: “Parking splits opinion, none more so than the issue of parking on pavements. In many parts of the UK, it is still allowed, but this could soon change as the Government reviews the issue. The outcome could affect the parking habits of millions.”

He added: “Parking on a pavement can cause real inconvenience to pedestrians, but some motorists feel it can be their only option. Our advice, where pavement parking is currently allowed, is always to make sure there’s plenty of room for pedestrians to get past and to be aware of people with a pushchair, with a visual impairment or in a wheelchair.”

One in ten drivers parks on the pavement daily, with another one in twenty parking on the pavement weekly. On top of that one in five drivers have admitted to parking on the pavement at some point in their driving life, although most cannot recall when. With the country completely split, any move from the government either way could prove highly contentious, and so this must be balanced well in order to meet the needs of those who struggle to manoeuvre pavements and help reduce the impact this could have on congestion.

What do you think about pavement parking? Would you be for or against a strict ban? Let us know in the comments below

The number of people each month getting caught for speeding seems to be increasing. And one of the reasons for this jump is the tech being used to catch drivers. The latest LTI Laser 2020 speed camera can catch a driver in just 0.03 seconds, working from up to 1,000 metres away and even has infrared to work at night.

High tech trap

The modern speed camera is a high-tech trap to catch drivers breaking the rules. The cameras can operate in any conditions and have a number of special filters that enable them to work in poor weather. The camera works in just 0.03 seconds so that by the time you have come around the corner and spotted the van, it has already clocked your speed and your details. And you’re still not safe from them at night as they have infrared facilities to allow them to take shots in the dark.

Details of the workings of these high-tech cameras came from an interview with a Camera Technician Enforcement Officer in the Grimsby Telegraph and gave a great deal of insight into the process of recording speeds. Known only as ‘Tommy’ the officer said that he would prefer not to catch anyone and that there is no quota regarding the number of people they must catch per day or even week.

Busy work

During the interview, the camera was located on the A18 Barton Street in Grimsby and quickly caught a speeder who was doing 62mph in a 50mph zone. A change of location to the Laceby roundabout nearby saw another two people caught, one doing 59mph and the other 67mph. The camera does have a tolerance of 10% plus 2mph, but all of these drivers will be receiving a fine and points.

We all hate getting caught speeding and some people take a more active role in trying to avoid the fine. One man tried to reach through the window to grab the speed camera – Tommy said that he always keeps the doors locked.

During the three hours that the reporter was with the officer, there were a total of 19 drivers who were caught exceeding the speed limit by enough to get them a fine and points and all of the footage is stored securely so there’s no chance that it can be altered.

Average speed cameras

While vans are the visible sign of speed enforcement, another type of camera is becoming increasingly popular around the UK – the average speed camera. One of the roads to recently receive their cameras is the A55 in North Wales. The cameras were put in place when drivers were found to be frequently breaking the 70mph limit on the road.

The cameras between J30 and J28 are temporary at the moment but there is talk that they could be permanent. They are one of two sets of such cameras in the region with the other on the A541 in Flintshire. They show the new face of speed enforcement that means you don’t need an enforcement officer constantly operating them.

These cameras are set 200 metres apart along a stretch of road at regular intervals in a managed speed control zone. Cameras have a date and time stamp as well as automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) which allows the computer to work out your average speed between the cameras. This then triggers the automatic fine to be sent. People think they are limited to working through the day but like the mobile speed cameras, they are also fitted with filters to work in all weathers and work at night with infrared tech built in.

Digital cameras on the street

The final other major development in speed cameras is the use of digital speed cameras on streets around the country. The new cameras have recently been added to streets around Swansea and replace the former systems which still used a 35mm ‘wet’ film. The problem with this system was that the film would run out and this would see an increase in speeding in the area.

The new cameras will be used to send out Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) for minor offences while larger offences can lead to a prosecution. If you break the speed limit by more than 30mph and are caught by the cameras, you could face being disqualified from driving. The switch to digital speed cameras is being rolled out across the country.

Spectre of speeding

None of us like to drive along a road and see a speed camera van with its tell-tale camera facing towards us. And there’s nothing worse than receiving that letter through the post telling us we have been caught. With new technology improving the reliability and sensitivity of the cameras, it does seem that the only way to be sure to avoid a fine is to avoid speeding – full stop.

Have you been caught by a speed camera in a van? Did you know how quick a speed camera could catch you? We’d love to hear your experiences!

Since 7th February 2011, all new EU cars and small vans must have dedicated daytime running lights (DRLs), to improve road safety but a survey by the RAC shows these lights cause unintended confusion for some drivers.

While all new vehicles must have daytime running lights at the front, they aren’t mandatory at the rear and this issue is what appears to be causing confusion and annoyance for road users.

Illuminating facts

Daytime running lights are lights fitted into a car’s existing headlights and taillights. The lights shine white at the front and red at the rear. These lights began in Nordic countries with low light levels during winter and, in 1977, Sweden was the first country to make them mandatory. Seven years later, the Volvo 240 became the first vehicle on UK roads with DRLs.

Studies show that DRLs can reduce the risk of road accidents; a 2008 American study on the effectiveness of DRLs on road safety reported only a 0.3% reduction in collisions while a 2003 EU investigation suggested a reduction in multi-party collisions of between 5% and 15%.

Research by the RAC now shows that many drivers don’t turn on their dipped lights or sidelights in dull driving conditions, perhaps assuming, because they have DRLs on at the front, the same applies to the rear lights.

In a RAC Opinion Panel survey of 2,061 motorists, 62% said they saw cars and vans driving around in dull overcast conditions with lights on at the front of their vehicles, but with unlit rear lights.

When asked whether the car they drive most often had DRLs, and if so, were they fitted to the front and/or back of the vehicle, survey respondents answered in the following ways:

Vehicle has no DRLs: 47%
Vehicle has front DRLs only: 29%
Vehicle has both front and rear DRLs: 14%
Vehicle has front DRLs, but driver uncertain if the car had rear DRLs: 8%

‘A very worrying finding’

Head of PR and External Affairs at RAC, Pete Williams said of the Opinion Panel survey results:

“This is potentially a very worrying finding as it implies that many drivers are driving without any rear lights believing that because they have running lights that switch on automatically at the front, they are also on at the rear.

“Alternatively, and arguably just as concerning, these drivers could simply have decided the light conditions were not bad enough to merit turning on their dipped lights or sidelights.

“While daytime running lights are clearly bringing a very valuable safety benefit to the UK’s roads, it would be good for every driver to take just a few minutes to make sure they know whether the vehicles they drive have them or not. And if they do, then check to see if they have them at the rear as well as the front. That way those that don’t have them at the back will be far more likely in poor daylight visibility to switch on their dipped lights to make their vehicle more easily seen from behind.

“We strongly urge everyone to carry out this check as those few minutes could make an important road safety difference.”

Dazzled by science

Fitting DRLs isn’t essential—vehicles produced before February 2011 do not need retrofitting—but fitting them may prevent an accident. If you want to fit DRLs in your car, you can choose from various aftermarket kits—look for an embossed approval mark on the lamp containing the letters ‘RL’. If you’re fitting DRLs, install them, so they come on with the engine and go off when you switch on the headlights. The lamps should come with fitting instructions but contact a qualified auto electrician if you’re in any doubt about fitting them. You might, instead, use your car’s existing sidelights during the daytime although they won’t be as bright as DRLs.

It is becoming more common for DRLs to contain light-emitting diodes (LEDs). LED lights consume little energy, which helps keep fuel consumption as low as possible. Using DRLs instead of driving with headlights or sidelights also means that rear lights and instrument lights aren’t on during the day.

LED DRLs are brighter, making them easier to spot in daylight. Manufacturers designed DRLs to make cars more obvious to other road users in daylight conditions, not to illuminate the road ahead.

Daytime running lights switch on when the engine is running. They should usually switch off when you turn off the main headlights but if yours don’t, make sure you turn your DRLs off when it’s dark, or they will dazzle other road users.

Although the UK has never brought in a rule requiring daytime use of headlights, your lights are an important part of your visibility on the road. By checking your car’s bulbs often you protect yourself and other road users.

Does your car have daytime running lights? Are you aware if your vehicle has them fitted at the rear, too? Are DRLs a problem? Share your opinion in the comments.

A review by the car insurance comparison website, MoneySupermarket has found that Hereford is the drink and drug drive capital of the UK, with 2.30 convictions for every 1,000 drivers.

Overall, the drink or drug driving rates are on the decline – almost a third down from 2017, but there are exceptions.

Data analysis

Traditionally, December always sees a spike in drink and drug driving offences; figures released for 2017 shows that 179 motorists were caught for the offence each day in December, but across the last twelve months, convictions have fallen from 1.47 per 1,000 drivers to just 1.05.

The figure for Hereford sits at 2.30 per 1,000 drivers, well over double the average.

MoneySupermarket has analysed the data from over 6 million insurance quotes for the last twelve months, along with the country’s highest area, it also shows the most at risk profession – plumbers rate at 17.26 per 1,000 and the lowest drink and drug drive area – London (between 0.45 & 0.67).

The data analysis also shows that the 17-24-year-old age group who drink or drug drive has increased by around 10% and that men are five times more likely to risk drink or drug driving than women.

While these statistics paint a colourful picture as to just how prevalent drink or drug driving is, there’s no evidence regarding the reasoning; it’s thought that London has the lowest rate purely due to the better public transport infrastructure.

Identifying the limit

A further study by Swinton Insurance may hold some of the answers; their study shows that nine out of ten drivers couldn’t identify the legal driving limit for alcohol, even when given a list of options. And with Scotland having a further reduced limit than the rest of the UK, it can be quite confusing.

Rebecca Ashton, head of driving behaviour at IAM RoadSmart states: “The problem with these limits is that no one can translate them into how many drinks or units they can have, and still be legal to drive. It varies substantially from person to person, depending on things such as age, weight and metabolism”.

With that said, alcohol is one of the most predictable reactions when it comes to leaving the body – an almost exact rate of .016 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) per hour, which is roughly one unit; three pints of strong beer, 3 large glasses of wine will take around 11 hours to completely leave your system.

The penalties

Alcohol can severely impact your driving ability – even just one glass or one pint can dull your reaction times, lower your ability to process information and slow your hand-eye coordination, so penalties are harsh. You could face imprisonment, a ban and an unlimited fine, depending on the severity of your offence.

Being in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink:
3 months’ imprisonment
Up to £2,500 fine
Possible driving ban

Driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink:
6 months’ imprisonment
Unlimited fine
Driving ban for at least 1 year (3 years if convicted twice in ten years)

Refusing to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine for analysis:
6 months’ imprisonment
Unlimited fine
Driving ban for at least 1 year

Along with the legal repercussions, a driving ban for drink or drugs will affect your insurance – most insurance companies will want to know for ten years and could weight your insurance premium by as much as 121%, while some companies will refuse to insure you.

It’s worth noting that drug driving carries similarly harsh penalties, and it isn’t just contained to illegal drugs, some medicinal drugs can also see you being prosecuted for the offence, these include: Clonazepam, Diazepam, Flunitrazepam, Lorazepam, Methadone, Morphine, Oxazepam, Temazepam and Amphetamine, although the limit for these prescription drugs is set higher than a regularly prescribed dosage, if there’s any doubt, you should take advice from your pharmacist or doctor.

Drink or drug driving is illegal for good reason, the general advice is that if you’re going to be drinking, no matter how small an amount, you should leave the car at home and not risk it. Be aware that the offence of ‘Being in charge of a vehicle’ doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to be driving it.

What do you think of drink drivers? Should they face tougher penalties? Have you ever been convicted of the offence? Is it fair that prescription drug users face prosecution? Let us know in the comments.

To improve road safety, the Department for Transport (DfT) is bringing in new rules, which mean drivers face fines if they’re caught parking in cycle lanes—and the penalty could be a whopping £130. Not only that, but cyclists using helmet cameras will aid police to charge motorists with dangerous driving.

The Highway Code is also under review to offer more protection to cyclists in a crackdown by authorities who want to get drivers out of their vehicles and, instead, onto bicycles, but cycling organisations say the new measures aren’t enough.

Bikes, camera, action!

As part of a two-year action plan involving measures ‘to combat road rage, encourage greater mutual respect between road users and protect the most vulnerable’, the DfT said that, for the first time, local councils would have the power to use CCTV cameras to monitor mandatory cycle lanes. London drivers found breaching cycle lanes face a fine of £130. Elsewhere in the UK, councils can issue fines of up to £70.

Together with the DfT appointing a new Cycling and Walking Champion to promote ‘active travel’, police will get a bespoke new back-office unit—using a £100,000 grant at first—to examine and share footage captured by dash-cams and cyclists’ helmet cameras.

It won’t be the first time the public has helped prosecute motorists for careless or dangerous driving. North Wales created ‘Operation Snap’ in 2016, which gives people the ability to upload personal footage of motorists breaking the law. This strategy saves around 14 hours of work per case compared with traditional investigative methods.

Further key measures of the plan include a Highway Code review, on how drivers should behave towards vulnerable road users—such as maintaining their distance when passing cyclists—and encouragement for local authorities to increase their total transport infrastructure spending to 15%.

On your bike

The government has rejected calls from certain members of the public, for cyclists to undergo cycling tests, have licences, insurance, and number plates for their bikes.

Extra safety gear won’t be mandatory for cyclists, either. The DfT stated that they believe wearing helmets and high-vis clothing should be an individual’s choice and they did not want to impose more regulations which would be difficult to enforce.

In his announcement last week, Minister of State for Transport, Jesse Norman MP said:

“Greater road safety—and especially the protection of vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders—is essential. We want to improve air quality, encourage healthy exercise, reduce obesity, and boost our high streets and economic productivity. That means more support for cycling and walking, and that’s why [sic] these new measures are designed to deliver.”

Walking and cycling organisations gave their support for the changes to the Highway Code but showed disappointment that the action plan didn’t tackle speed reduction.

Paul Tuohy, Cycling UK Chief Executive said lowering vehicle speeds around people walking, cycling, and horse riding doesn’t just reduce the danger to them, but also their perception of the danger.

“While the DfT’s proposals for amendments to the Highway Code will help save lives, ignoring the threat and dangers of speeding is disappointing,” he said.

In 2017, 101 cyclists died on the UK’s roads and there were 18,220 injured. 2017 also saw a 5% rise in pedestrian deaths. In the years 2007 to 2016, around three pedestrian fatalities each year and 82 serious injuries involved cycles—or 0.6% of pedestrians. Yet, 99.4% of collisions in which a pedestrian died involved motor vehicles (e.g. cars, motorbikes, lorries, vans, etc.).

Do you know the code?

In case your knowledge of the Highway Code is rusty, here’s how things stand on cycle lanes and cyclist waiting boxes:

Motorists—and motorcyclists unless the signs dictate otherwise—mustn’t drive or park in cycle lanes with a solid white line running down their right side. These are mandatory cycle lanes.

Other cycle lanes have a broken white line running down the right side. Drivers shouldn’t drive or park in these either unless unavoidable. An example might mean a large vehicle is approaching on the opposite side of the road, which may need more road space, or a vehicle parked inappropriately on the opposite side of the road prompts traffic to drive around it.

Advanced stop lines (ASL), also known as cyclist waiting boxes, are another area motor vehicles mustn’t enter. If you’re found doing this, you might receive up to a £100 fine and three penalty points on your licence. To lessen the chance of having to stop in the cyclist waiting box when in slow-moving traffic, pause at the first white line and make sure there’s ample space for your vehicle to clear the junction safely before moving onto the box. If your vehicle has crossed the first solid white line and the traffic lights turn red, you must stop before the second white line and wait in the cyclist waiting area. You’re not committing an offence if you drive onto the box while the traffic light is green and can’t clear it before the light changes to red. For you to risk prosecution, a police officer or camera would have to witness you crawl along onto the box while the traffic light is already red.

How do you feel about cameras policing cycle lanes? Are you a cyclist and/or motorist who is looking forward to capturing footage of bad driving? Do these changes worry you? Tell us in the comments.

Across the country, 500 number plates are stolen every week leaving many motorists facing penalty notices and boxing in for crimes they haven’t committed. The ordeal of recovery and the fines and penalty notices that have to be contested has been described as “incredibly upset[ting]” by one person involved.

Last year 25,000 numberplates were taken from cars, and the figure this year has already reached 22,000 as released by the AA under a Freedom of Information request. Police are now urging drivers to report stolen plates immediately in order to aid investigation and to prevent further accusation of innocent drivers.

Technology increasing theft

Motorists across the country have received numerous penalty notices, fines and more for crimes they haven’t committed as criminal gangs steal and use the number plates to avoid getting convicted for crimes.

Criminals, both individuals and organised gangs, have taken numberplates to conceal crimes such as stealing petrol from forecourts, known as bilking, or reckless driving. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras only pick up the number plate, as suggested by the name, so any theft, even if its only one plate, should be reported to police.

Advances in ANPR technology mean that numberplate theft is on the rise, Sheffield County noted an increase of 36% from 2013 to 2017 in theft, taking it from 501 thefts in 2013 to 680 in 2017.

Since the introduction and national adoption of ANPR technologies, starting in 2005, stolen number plates value has increased drastically as criminals try to avoid prosecution. Nationwide thefts have risen by 76% since 2005 when the BBC reported a rise in number plate theft, and since then theft has increased risen by approximately 800 thefts annually. Back in 2005, 14,176 number plate thefts were recorded, and the figure of near 25,000 this year is a monumental increase over time.

Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for the AA said; “While a small percentage of the UK’s national vehicles suffer the inconvenience and frustration of having their number plate stolen, it is an incredibly serious issue.

Stolen plates are often cloned and put onto other vehicles. These are then used to cover up further criminal activity, such as selling stolen cars or burglary. Other instances of criminality under stolen plates include ram raids and even not paying congestion charges.

More than a quarter (28%) of drivers say that if one plate were missing from their vehicle, they wouldn’t report it to the police. Drivers should report any number plate theft as the innocent victim could end up receiving speeding tickets and other traffic fines.”

“A horrible experience”

One driver who was the victim of plate cloning had her car boxed in, while driving on the M1. Tia Kinnard from Dunstable described the ordeal as “a horrible experience.” After the mishap was cleared up, it came to light that a gang had cloned her number plates and used them for numerous burglaries in and around London.

Meanwhile, in Brighton and Hove, Mariam Castle was the victim of number plate theft when the plates were stolen off her VW Polo. While she reported the stolen plates to the police immediately, she received two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) for driving in bus lanes and had to contest the fines in a lengthy process.

She said: ‘It really shook me up, receiving those penalty notices. Finally, they were dropped, but it was a lot of hassle, and the whole ordeal left me incredibly upset.’

What can you do?

In some cases, there is very little that the motorist can do.

In older cars where the number plate is stuck on with double-sided tape, it is best to add in anti-theft screws to put off thieves initially, as they will be less likely to steal plates that are more secured, the risk of them being noticed is much higher.

Anti-theft number plates are also available to buy. Launched back in 2006 by the then Transport Minister, Stephen Ladyman, they are designed to shatter into pieces upon removal, making them unusable by criminals.

Inspector Craig Clifton, from South Yorkshire Police’s Roads Policing Group, said: “The reason criminals steal number plates, and quite possibly the reason numbers of reported thefts have risen, is because of the advancement in ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) technology. Number plates are stolen for a variety of reasons to mask criminality.

In order to protect your number plate, if it isn’t permanently affixed to the vehicle then it’s vulnerable and because we change plates generally they are not a permanent fixture.

All people can do is make the plates harder to remove, so ensure they are screwed on with anti-theft screws rather than affixed with double-sided tape.

You could also use anti-theft number plates which break upon removal. It’s worth trying to park in less conspicuous areas to make it harder for criminals to hide while removing the plates.”

Have you ever been affected by stolen number plates? Do you think more should be done to protect drivers from this? Let us know below

A report for the Department for Transport has concluded that 20mph zones have made no impact on road safety and that drivers have reduced their speed by just 0.7mph within those zones.

The study has been carried out over four years, in twelve different areas. One of the main findings is that up to 94% of drivers break the speed limit if they usually drove above 24mph before the 20mph zone was introduced.

Revenue raising

Before we jump on the revenue-raising bandwagon, which undoubtedly will be an issue, a close look at the report will perhaps reveal a more political nature to the introduction of 20mph zones.

While there is an argument for road safety, there are three main factors in the decision for a 20mph zone; these are broken down as: transport related, community or politically driven, and health-related. Within these three categories are three weak answers – to reduce the negative impact of cars in urban centres (such as parking space pressures and congestion), a low-cost way to ‘improve’ the lives of residents, and as a way to tackle the perceived quality of the environment.

It would seem that road safety was the intended by-product, rather than the driving force behind implementation.

Speed kills

Twelve areas took part in the study, including parts of Winchester, Liverpool, Brighton, Portsmouth and Middlesbrough, where data could be collected before and after implementation of the 20mph zone. The cost for each zone ranged from £10,000 through to £1.7m and focused solely on zones with no other traffic calming measures such as chicanes, speed humps or directional rights of way.

It was found that typically, drivers ignored the signage, believing that the risk of being caught speeding was minimal, which led to just a 0.7mph reduction in speeding through the zone, with an overall reduction of 0.9mph in the surrounding areas approaching the zone. 47% of drivers admitted to regularly breaking the 20mph limit, that figure increased to 94% of drivers where the road was previously faster than an average of 24mph.

Edmund King, president of the AA, says: “We believe that targeted 20mph limits work best where they’re needed – outside schools or hospitals, or places where other vulnerable road users may be encountered. Speed limits need to reflect the nature of the road, and this report has vindicated the reservations of motorists with regard to 20mph zones”.

Road safety

Within the study, it was found that the biggest contributing factor to an accident was ‘failure to observe’, either as a pedestrian (17%) or motorist (37%), but the lower speeds should mean that a road user has more time to react to an incident – which in theory means a lessened chance of injury.

However, it’s that very reason that could also cause a problem – with road users having more time to react, it seems that complacency is increasing. Further still, and perhaps the biggest takeaway from the study is that there is a small amount of evidence that shows an increase in driver frustration and distraction.

The frustration part is purely from learned behaviour – that can change with time, but the distraction part could be down to the need for constant checking of the speedometer; ensuring that you’re driving below a 20mph limit takes concentration and a certain amount of skill, and with the influx of silent-running electric vehicles, that could be made worse – there will be no engine note as guidance.

With no significant change in accident rates, and no benefit to the environment, can the local authorities justifiably continue to spend the amount of money required to create such folly? It would seem that these 20mph zones are now purely about the perceived perception of a neighbourhood, rather than offering any benefit whatsoever, and in a time when councils are going bust, surely the money is better spent elsewhere?

Of course, there is always a need to back causes that improve road safety, including reduced speed limits where there is proven benefit, but an inappropriate blanket 20mph zone isn’t that. Perhaps we should be thankful that currently, many of these reduced speed zones aren’t enforced with speed cameras as a simple money-making hotspot, but the cynics amongst us would ask how long it will be before that happens?

What do you think of this latest report? Are the findings a revelation? Or just as you’ve suspected all along? Will local authorities view them as a quick way to raise revenue? Let us know in the comments.