The Association of Optometrists (AOP) have called for tougher laws on vision testing for motorists after it was found that 44% of all optometrists have seen a patient that shouldn’t be driving due to vision problems.

It’s estimated that around 2,900 accidents and injuries occur on Britain’s roads each year as a direct result of poor vision, and with motorists only needing to perform a simple check at the time of their practical test, there are no other mandatory testing procedures in place to check a driver’s vision ability.

‘Shocking’ numbers

In our previous article, we reported that an estimated 1.5 million drivers have never had an eye test and that it’s possible to lose up to 40% of your visual acuity without even realising there’s a problem. Poor vision is such a problem that police forces in the West Midlands, Hampshire and Thames Valley have been carrying out on the spot checks.

Following the introduction of Cassie’s Law, the police have new procedures in place that can fast-track the process of revoking a motorist’s licence should they fail a spot test; this can be done within an hour rather than several days, and over 600 motorists had their driving licence revoked in 2015 as a direct result of the new power.

Henry Leonard, a spokesperson for the Association of Optometrists said: “It is shocking that so many drivers are overlooking the importance of good vision. Sight change can often be gradual, and people may not notice any changes that could affect their ability to drive; this campaign is about reminding drivers that they should ensure they meet the minimum legal standard to drive and help to make our roads safer”.

Standard eyesight test

The standard eyesight test was introduced back in 1937, and although it has been through minor changes, it is still basic, to say the least; reading a number plate at the distance of 20 metres – around 4 to 5 car lengths. Simple yet effective.

Following on from this test, the onus is on the driver to be self-aware and self-reporting of any changes in their eyesight, and while the majority of UK motorists do comply, clearly there’s an element that either don’t realise they need to or just plain don’t accept it. With over 14,000 optometrists in the UK, that equates to just over 6,000 drivers that shouldn’t be driving.

Perhaps it’s about time that we adopted a similar practice to other parts of the world, where a full eye examination must be carried out before the licence examination?

The average cost of a serious road accident is around the £230,000 mark, a minor accident around £24,000. With 2,900 accidents each year linked to poor vision, that’s close to £70 million per annum, at the very minimum.

Awareness isn’t enough

Driving with poor eyesight could lead to a fine of up to £1,000, 3 penalty points or a discretionary disqualification, it could also invalidate your insurance. Alongside the Association of Optometrists, road safety charity Brake is pushing for drivers to understand the implications and consequences of driving with poor vision, but they’re also aware that the current laws don’t go far enough.

“Awareness alone isn’t enough, the Government must take the lead to improve our driver licensing laws and implement mandatory eye tests for drivers” – Joshua Harris, Director of Campaigns, Brake.

Whether you’re a glasses/contact lens wearer or not, the latest advice is that you should consider getting your eyes tested every two years – don’t wait until you recognise that there’s a problem. Early detection could mean that the problem doesn’t get any worse, but it should also help to ensure that you comply with legislation.

Furthermore, an eye examination can often pick up on other health problems such as brain tumours, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, along with regular eye problems such as macular degeneration, cataracts and glaucoma – getting your eyes tested regularly is a common-sense move.

Eye tests

A full eye examination can be found for as little as £10, free examinations and help to buy prescription glasses are available for certain people, and if you use a VDU (Visual Display Unit) through work, the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations of 1992 state that any employee using a VDU should be given an eye test when requested.

Getting an eye test can take as little as 30 minutes of your time but could save you a great deal of time and trouble in the future, don’t wait for that near miss.

Do you need glasses to drive? When was the last time you had an eye examination? Should the government introduce compulsory eye testing? Let us know in the comments.

The Department for Transport (DfT), has published its 2017 figures and their data shows most motorists aren’t keeping to the speed limit when driving through 20 miles per hour (mph) zones.

While the DfT statistics show drivers break the law across all speed limits, the slower speed zones are the areas where they’re more inclined to spurn the law, which causes one to ask—are 20mph speed limits a waste of time?

Eighty-six per cent break the law

In 2017 the DfT examined 446.6 million journeys on 74 roads within England and found that 46% of the journeys monitored were in breach of the speed limit. The number of car drivers violating the speed limit went up as the speed limit lowered with 86% of journeys observed within 20mph zones above the legal limit.

Speeding within 20mph zones wasn’t only limited to drivers of cars though. Eighty-five per cent of motorcyclists, 77% of ‘long’ bus drivers, and 53% of ‘short’ bus drivers were also guilty of breaking the law, as were 84% of drivers of light commercial vehicles (LCVs) or vans and 75% of HGV drivers—all travelling at an average speed of 26mph in the 20mph zones.

It seems the night is a more tempting time for exceeding the speed limit in 20mph zones with 94% of car drivers exceeding the maximum speed at 2 am and 98% of motorcyclists breaking the law at midnight.

The DfT’s annual speeding data shows a somewhat steady picture of speeding over the last seven years, although the 2017 figures show more drivers exceeding 20mph zones than in the two previous years.

The study saw 52% of car drivers and 54% of motorcyclists exceeding the limit in 30mph zones, despite these restrictions being in place across residential areas.

Sixty mph zones are where motorists are most cautious, with just 9% of journeys recorded as over the limit.

Forty-eight per cent of the 34 million journeys monitored on the motorway exceeded the 70mph speed limit, 11% exceeded 80mph, while 1% of journeys exceeded 90mph.

‘Waste of money’

Last month, in response to a news story by The Sun newspaper that 20mph limits have cost over £11 million of taxpayers’ money, the motoring organisation, the AA described implementing these zones as a ‘waste of money.’

Edmund King, AA President said:

“Spending over £10m to put in blanket twenty-speed signs on over 1,500 miles of road without targeting is frankly a waste of money.

“If drivers understand the reason for the speed limit, they are more likely to obey it.

“Rather than spending millions on signs that are ignored, it would be safer to improve dangerous junctions and put in pedestrian crossings.”

Yet, road safety advocates insist 20mph zones improve safety, referring to data that shows a 6.2% fall in traffic accidents with each 1mph reduction in average speed.

In July this year, The Mayor of London, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), and Transport for London (TfL) published London’s first ‘Vision Zero’ action plan, which set out plans to end deaths and serious injuries from London’s transport network.
The core of the strategy includes a plan to lower speed limits to 20mph on London’s roads.

Josh Harris, Director of Campaigns at Brake, the road safety charity, said:

“The Mayor is right to focus on speed reduction and the rollout of 20mph limits—simply put lower speeds save lives. If you are hit by a car at 30mph, you are more likely to die, if you are hit at 20mph, you are more likely to survive. This stark fact should be reason enough for all to welcome the introduction of safe 20mph limits across the capital. London is setting an example the rest of the UK should follow and we urge the Government to make 20mph the default speed for built-up areas across the UK, helping make streets across the country safer and more welcoming.”

Frustrated drivers

The UK introduced 20mph zones in 1991 to address the problem of child pedestrian
casualties in and around residential areas. The government later allowed local highway authorities to impose limits without the need to apply to central Government for permission.

Many, though not all, 20mph zones are outside schools. The rationale behind 20mph zones is that motorists are less liable to have a collision when moving at this lower speed and pedestrians will have a greater likelihood of survival if hit by a vehicle travelling at or below 20mph. So, are these zones successful?

There’s much-reported data stating that not only did the rate of road deaths and accidents not decrease in most of the areas where councils installed 20mph limits, but they increased. This may be, in part, due to frustrated motorists taking risks to get past slow-moving vehicles.

Yet, a major study by the British Medical Journal determined that, after introducing 20mph limits, road casualties dropped by 42%, and the number of children who had serious injuries or died fell by 50%.

We’re all aware it’s more dangerous to get hit by a vehicle travelling at 30mph than by one travelling at 20mph but can we guarantee that, should we get knocked down in a 20mph zone, the driver will be sticking to the speed limit?

Do you think 20mph speed limits are excessive or necessary? Are there 20mph zones in your area that frustrate you? Would you like to see a 20mph limit introduced on a particular road? Tell us your opinion in the comments.

Police across the country are this week cracking down on uninsured motorists as it is revealed that it costs law-abiding citizens up to £100 million a year in premiums. From Monday 12th November, police across the country will be using ANPR cameras and the Motor Insurance Database to try and catch those who do not drive with insurance.

Why now?

This isn’t the first year that ‘Operation Drive Insured’ has run, with tremendous success last autumn, leading to rollouts with Police Scotland further and now repeated annually.

Last month the Motor Insurance Board (MIB) confirmed that it had written to its five millionth uninsured car owner since 2011, an impressive number in eight years, around 625,000 a year or 1712 a day. They also revealed that at certain points in the year, they could write letters to as many as three thousand people a day, thanks to an automated system that is run with help from the DVLA, and set up seven years ago.

The introduction of the Continuous Enforcement Legislation has meant that both the DVLA and MIB can identify and prosecute the cars (and their owners) that appear to be off the road or driven without insurance but not declared with a Statutory Off the Road Notice (SORN.)

In 2017, the MIB received 11,000 complaints from people who had been involved in a road traffic collision with an uninsured party, costing those that do drive with insurance over £100 million a year from their insurance premiums. This is due to the MIB being a last resort for failed claims, meaning that the premiums of law-abiding citizens are used to make up for those who choose not to insure their cars.

Plans for this week

This week, officers from 35 forces across the UK will use ANPR cameras placed in strategic locations to identify cars without insurance.

They’ll then have a direct line to the Motor Insurance Database, provided by MIB, and will be able to quickly liaise the insurers to determine if there is valid insurance on the car. If there is none, they will be able to seize the car, and the driver could get up to six points on their licence and face court prosecution. At the same time that the vehicle is seized, police will be carrying out a series of additional checks for other road traffic offences.

Other offences being checked include ones for drink or drug driving, as statistics show that those who are uninsured are more likely to be committing another road traffic offence at the same time. Technological developments mean that these roadside tests can be conducted easily and quickly before more in-depth tests are conducted back at the police station.

Simon Hills, the inspector for roads policing operations at Thames Valley Police, said: “In my experience, drivers who willingly use vehicles without insurance are often committing secondary offences.

These range in seriousness from minor road traffic offences, to driving whilst disqualified and other crimes such as drug dealing and burglary.

The effective enforcement of uninsured vehicles allows us to deny criminals the use of the road and prevent further offending. Operation Drive Insured is a perfect opportunity for us to target our resources.”

Hotspots for uninsured drivers

Data from MIB, published back in 2015, shows that the North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and the West Midlands all have the highest number of uninsured drivers, with the number one top spot in the postal area of B9, under West Midlands police. An estimated 117,000 vehicles in the West Midlands area were uninsured in 2015, a shockingly large figure.

West Yorkshire Police released a statement backing the national push, as they are in the top 20 hotspots in the UK for uninsured drivers. MIB figures estimated that 55,000 cars in West Yorkshire were uninsured.
Superintendent Mark Jessop of West Yorkshire Police’s Road Policing Unit said:

“Driving on West Yorkshire’s roads uninsured is not safe and will not be tolerated. We have dedicated officers across the force dealing with incidents on the roads on a daily basis.

On average we seize around 25 cars a day across the county for having no insurance.

It is often the case that a driver who does not insure their vehicle may not take other responsible steps in ensuring it is roadworthy, making it a potentially dangerous vehicle on our roads.

We would encourage all drivers to stay insured and to drive safely. If your vehicle is seized for having no insurance, you will have to pay to release that vehicle whilst also providing proof it is now insured within a fixed time. Ultimately, the vehicle could be crushed. In addition to the seizure costs, you face a fixed penalty of a £300 fine and six penalty points.”

Do you think it is fair that law-abiding citizens have to pay out £100 million a year for those who break the law? Should more be done for those who don’t pay for insurance? Let us know in the comments below

An investigation by Money Mail shows that inadequate response times are forcing AA and RAC customers to hire independent recovery firms to come to their rescue instead.

Desperate motorists are abandoning their vehicles and calling on friends, family, or taxis to collect them while others are finding themselves stranded at the side of the road for up to 12 hours, as they wait for recovery.

The unsettling news comes after figures show complaints about breakdown companies doubled last year and look set to double again by the end of this financial year. So, just what is going so wrong with the nation’s two largest roadside assistance companies?

Stranded without food or water

The Daily Mail spoke to Martyn James, Head of Media and Marketing at Resolver, a free online service that helps consumers raise and resolve consumer issues. Mr James says breakdown companies aren‘t good enough and that an increasing number of people find that when something goes wrong with their vehicle; the wait is excessive.

Resolver dealt with only 360 complaints in 2016-17. This figure grew to 711 complaints the following year. By August of this year, they had already received 446 complaints and say they expect to receive around 1,000 by the end of the 2018 financial year.

The AA said the average time between when they receive a call and when they arrive at the breakdown is under 50 minutes while the RAC said it gives each member an individual expected time of arrival. Yet, what‘s shocking is that Resolver says they’ve heard of people left stranded overnight without food or water.

According to experts, a big part of the problem is the lack of competition within the roadside recovery industry. Between them, the AA and the RAC control around 70% of the market and, although they each use their own patrols, they also contract out jobs to local recovery firms. The AA said they contracted out less than 15% of its jobs last year but, as they attend up to 10,000 breakdowns a day, this equates to around 500,000 call-outs. The RAC report contracting out 10% of their 2.3million call-outs last year.

Blaming the weather

Stephen Smith, of the Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators (ARVO)—which represents local breakdown firms—says the demand on companies such as the AA and RAC to keep prices low for customers means the rates they pay to local breakdown services doesn‘t encourage them to take on jobs.

The AA and RAC responded to Money Mail’s investigation findings. Here’s what their spokespersons said:

From the AA: “A harsh winter, Britain’s appalling potholed roads and a long hot summer have put pressure on the UK’s breakdown services and garages, with the AA seeing a sharp increase in calls for roadside assistance. Sometimes this has meant it took longer to reach our members than we would wish. We know we can improve so are investing in more AA roadside and recovery patrols as well as front-line staff, including in our contact centres.”

The RAC’s response: “As a responsible business we take all complaints seriously and aim to resolve them as quickly as we can. Following the harsh winter weather and the hottest summer on record, we saw large increases in breakdown volumes which inevitably led to more complaints. We have taken steps to reduce long waits and are improving the way we communicate with members who need their vehicles recovered.”

Be prepared

With all this said, if you drive a car, breakdown cover is important. Even in the most reliable of vehicles, mechanical or electrical problems can still happen. If your car breaks down at the side of the road and you don’t have breakdown cover, it can be both stressful and expensive, not to mention put you at risk from other vehicles and crime—especially at night.

Yes, motoring costs a lot already, but you can find decent breakdown cover at a low cost. If you sign up for breakdown cover while stranded, known as ‘instant cover’, you’ll pay far more than if you‘d bought cover in advance.

Before you take out a policy, though, check if breakdown cover is part of another service you already have. For instance, your bank account may include this, your car manufacturer may cover you as part of the warranty, or it could be part of your existing car insurance. If not, adding breakdown cover to your insurance is often better value than taking out a separate breakdown cover policy.

It’s wise to keep a photocopy of your breakdown cover policy on you, in the event your vehicle breaks down. Most people now carry mobile phones but carry a charger that works in your car, too.

The average wait time for roadside recovery is 40-60 minutes and, because you might need to stand away from your vehicle until help arrives, keep a warm coat, a reflective, high-visibility vest, and a torch in the boot. We hope you’ll never have a use for them, but you’ll be glad of them should a breakdown ever occur.

Do you have breakdown cover? Have you waited an excessive time for roadside assistance? Or has your experience been positive? Tell us your opinion in the comments

Fuel duty is never a popular topic, but with the inevitable switchover to electric vehicles (EVs), this long-loathed tax is on its way out, together with the billions of pounds of revenue it generates for the government coffers.

Estimates say the Treasury will earn £28.3bn from fuel duty this financial year and the leading UK think tank and educational charity, Policy Exchange, told Autocar magazine they estimated the move to electric vehicles may cost the government up to £170billion by 2030 in lost taxation.

With this in mind, ministers are considering how to replace this huge financial shortfall and the answer might take the form of road pricing. If MPs go ahead with this scheme, UK drivers will face paying for every mile they drive.

Plugging the gap

In early October, Prime Minister Theresa May promised fuel duty would stay frozen for the ninth year in a row, at 57.95 pence per litre of petrol or diesel purchased. While good news for motorists, it’s still galling to know 44% of what we pay at the pumps is the fuel duty, which may account for why fuel duty is so unpopular. This isn’t an issue for pure electric vehicle owners who avoid paying any fuel duty—something very appealing when fuel prices are so high.

To reduce air pollution, or receive large fines, the government is keen to reduce emissions, by getting all UK motorists—over 30 million of us—to switch to greener cars. Only last week we wrote about the impending ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars.

Not to mention factors such as Oxford City Council considering a ban on all non-zero emissions cars from the city centre, other cities considering charges for petrol and diesel vehicles, and the European Parliament ruling that manufacturers’ must reduce fleet average CO2 emissions for new cars 35% by 2030.

So, how will the government claw back the money lost from fuel duty revenue from petrol and diesel when drivers change to less-polluting hybrid and electric vehicles?

According to Policy Exchange, officials are looking into introducing road pricing to plug the gap, meaning drivers may have to pay to use major routes—even if their vehicles produce zero emissions—which may not go down too well with car owners who feel penalised at every turn.

‘Poll tax on wheels’

There hasn’t been a proposed solution by the government yet, but it’s no doubt on their agenda as the sale of fuel drops with increased EV sales. Josh Burke, Senior Research Fellow for Policy Exchange, told Autocar that a Treasury official had mentioned to him that the government was looking at alternatives to Fuel Duty—one of them being road pricing.

“If anything, the case for reform has accelerated because of the increased uptake of plug-ins,” said Burke.

AA President, Edmund King OBE who, in an interview with Autocar, said: “Road pricing gets described as a poll tax on wheels. It’s political suicide.” Instead, he and his wife, economist Deirdre King propose an alternative scheme they created together, called ‘Road Miles’.

The scheme would give motorists an ‘allowance’ of 3,000 free miles each year, with a charge for every later mile. Motorists living in rural areas and electric vehicle owners would receive more free miles, with a gradual phase-in of the scheme as fuel duty disappears. Just as road pricing would need, for King’s scheme to work, a record of miles travelled is almost certain to come from a device connected to the car’s diagnostic port (much like an insurance telematics ‘black box’) or, for older cars, checked as part of the MOT. Yet, the latter would have to involve a much tighter crackdown on odometer tampering, known as ‘clocking’. This alternative to road pricing may not appeal to all, but last year, King and his wife made the shortlist for the esteemed Wolfson Economics Prize for their Road Miles proposal.

Big Brother is watching you

It‘s a given that fuel duty will disappear and while it would be difficult to apply something similar for electric cars; we have no way of knowing if—while looking at alternatives to keep tax revenue at the current levels—the government won’t bring in a tax on electricity used to charge zero-emission cars.

The possibility of road pricing has always proven to be unpopular. So unpopular that, in 2007, despite no firm proposals being put forward for road pricing, almost two million people signed a Downing Street petition against a national road pricing plan. If the government decide on road pricing as the answer, they could face a fierce backlash from the public. There were also worries from drivers about privacy issues from tracking devices being fitted to cars, which no doubt will resurface if road pricing takes over fuel duty.

In the past, the government said they wouldn’t use the mileage device to keep watch on drivers or to prosecute those found speeding, but who can say future laws won’t change to include such monitoring of driver behaviours?

If, or when, road pricing starts, we’ll know more about more complicated details, such as how will those motorists who, for instance, take their cars on driving holidays across Europe, receive reliable and fair charges only for the mileage clocked up on UK roads? While we wait to see what the future holds for fuel duty, EV drivers, at least, can continue to enjoy no longer having it as part of their motoring costs.

Do you think road pricing is a good replacement for fuel duty? What about the Road Miles idea? Do you have any concerns about having telematics fitted to your car? What alternatives to fuel duty would you support? Tell us in the comments.

The City of London Corporation is looking at implementing a 15mph speed limit in the capital’s Square Mile to help with road safety and reduce pollution.

Experts say that if anything, it will increase pollution levels due to the stop & start nature of the traffic, but road safety charity Brake is backing the plans.

Planning & Transportation Chairman for the City of London Corporation, Chris Hayward says: “90% of collisions that result in death or serious injury involve a motor vehicle. We need bold ideas to make our streets safer”.

Horse and cart

There were 54 people killed or seriously injured on the streets of the City of London last year, and despite the lower 20mph speed limits, the number of these incidents hasn’t decreased, purely because of the record numbers of pedestrians in the City.

A spokesperson for the AA said that lowering the speed limit will have little to no effect on injuries, comparing the traffic speed to that of a horse and cart, and IAM RoadSmart Director of Policy and Research agrees: “There is no real road safety benefit in enforcing a speed limit which traffic seldom reaches”.

The experts also agree that in all likelihood, it will raise pollution levels, which are currently under scrutiny, and therefore used to tax the motorist further.

Practicalities will also play a part; how would they implement the lower speed limit, particularly concerning cyclists? It’s estimated that around two people are killed or injured every week as a result of an accident with a bicycle. The conviction of Charlie Alliston for causing bodily harm through ‘wanton and furious driving’ proves that there is an issue that needs looking in to.

Better investment

Experts say that rather than enforce an unworkable solution, that will cause further problems with pollution levels, that the City of London Corporation should look into making investments in better road safety infrastructure, such as pedestrian crossings, pinch points and speed humps.

A spokesperson for Brake said: “Speed is a critical factor in many deaths on our roads, we welcome any measure that can help make our communities safer; slower speeds save lives and make our streets a more liveable environment”.

In contrary to that, Hampshire County Council stated in June that they would be no longer implementing 20mph limits, as they’d noticed no discernible reduction in road accidents, which would fit with the theory from the AA.

“Changing the limit from a 30mph zone to 20mph reduces the speed slightly, but the majority of motorists travel at 25mph, so there has been a reduction in speed, but not significant”.

Pollution levels

Putting aside the speed vs injury debate, the other argument from the City of London Corporation is that there would be a reduction in pollution levels. Clearly, with traffic taking longer to clear the area, the start/stop nature of traffic, combined with an already overloaded road system, this simply wouldn’t happen?

A study by the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation (ECCI) in 2013 found similar results; the nature of stop/start traffic at low speeds means that there is an increase in acceleration and braking, coupled with the fact that at such low speed, any motorist would likely to be in a low gear, which would further exacerbate the problem. The optimum speed for minimising vehicle pollution and emissions is actually around 40mph.

However, that’s simplifying it too much, there are further points to be aware of.

If the traffic flow is smooth, then lower speed limits will help with reducing pollution, it’s only when you introduce the stop & start of city driving that it will negate the effect of lower limits. Due to further legislation surrounding emissions, car manufacturers comply with much stricter emissions regulations, and therefore, their products are tuned to give optimum returns under the majority of use – around 45 – 50mph in top gear.

Using traffic-calming measures can work under certain circumstances, but it gets back to keeping the traffic flowing smoothly – not accelerating away from speed humps or traffic lights for example.

Generation

While it’s undoubtedly commendable to try and reduce the number of injuries in a locale, there needs to be serious thought given as to how practical this can be, or whether it’s just another publicity/money generating scheme for the local authority.

Evidence and experts say that a 15mph speed limit won’t really affect either positively – it won’t reduce accidents, nor will it help with pollution, so just what is the purpose of lowering the limit? We know the cynical answer, but surely, it can’t be that blatant?

What do you think of a 15mph speed limit? Should more cities introduce it? Should the City of London stop wasting money on schemes to hit the motorist? Let us know in the comments.

In the budget released on Monday, Chancellor Philip Hammond revealed plans to invest £28.8 billion in the National Road Fund but not all seems as it should be. While the huge investment seems to be great news, digging a little deeper shows the true reason behind the decision.

Around £25.3 billion has been sectioned to Highways England to help build and upgrade motorways, with a heavy focus on smart motorways. Smart motorways have long raised suspicion as a cash cow for the government, with £100 fines handed out consistently for all manner of misdemeanours.

Cash cows

Figures show that from when smart motorways were first introduced to the beginning of 2017 a phenomenal £21 million pounds were raised from fines, including speeding and minor transgressions, such as driving in a lane which is closed.

Since then, over 200 miles of smart motorways have been built, double the amount there were previously, leading to the conclusion that an extra £20 million or so could have been raised. It seems clear that the government has realised this potential and so chosen to act on it in order to help generate some revenue for roads.

Variable speed limits have no doubt generated the most in fines, with many people caught out by the sudden changes that can drop to as low as 40mph. Smart motorways are designed to help keep drivers safe and reduce congestion, all which contribute to lowered emissions.

Highways England, speaking to SurreyLive in 2016 said “The government has been clear speed cameras should not be used to generate revenue and the vast majority of motorists are sticking to the speed limits,”

“Variable speed limits on smart motorways are designed to smooth traffic flow, improve journey times and reduce congestion for millions of motorists while also enhancing safety.”

All for the best?

Aside from the cash cow issue, others have condemned the rise in funding for major roads as “not sustainable” and “gearing up to create more pollution that wrecks our climate.”

Shadow Transport Secretary Andy McDonald spoke out on the decision to increase funding saying “With car dependency rising, public transport in decline and local roads in a state of disrepair, ramping up spending on major roads is the wrong decision.”

“It simply isn’t sustainable to repeatedly ramp-up major road spending, especially at a time when air pollution causes 40,000 premature deaths each year and climate change is threatening a global crisis.”

The climate change argument is one that has been echoed across the industry, especially as grants to buy a new electric car have been cut. There has also been no relief for business who buy electric cars as the tax for low emission company cars to 16% for 2019 and then fall to 2% in 2020, a move discouraged by MPs and industry leaders alike.

“Peeing in the sea?”

Along with the £25.3 billion for roads, Mr Hammond also pledged an extra £420 million for pothole repairs, which would be made available immediately as the backlog from bad weather earlier this year continues to mount.

However, this figure has been dismissed as “peeing in the sea” by Mr Pothole, an anti-pothole campaigner. He pointed out that Kent Council alone had a £630 million backlog, and they had the second highest number of potholes in any county, ahead of Surrey which, back in January had over 6,700 unfixed potholes. The total sum to fix all of the potholes and bring the roads to an adequate state of repair would cost in the region of £9 billion, hence the “peeing in the sea” comparison.

The Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) also commented on this, saying that over 10 years an extra £1.5 billion would be needed to bring the roads to an adequate condition and “halt the ongoing decline.”

VED increase

In a hidden segment of the budget, a small text portion revealed that Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) was going to increase in with RPI from April 2019. With VED now being ring-fenced to help maintain the Strategic Road Network, perhaps the thought process behind the increase was motorists may be happy to pay more if they know that it is going straight on roads.

For some motorists who are buying new cars, they could be paying an increase of up to £65 extra a year, coming into effect on April 1st, 2019, depending on the emissions level of the car. For most drivers this will mean an annual increase of £5 a year on their yearly payments, taking it to £145 for petrol and diesel cars and £135 for hybrids. This is now the third year in a row that VED has increased and another increase is expected in 2020.

Do you think the budget will help or hinder motorists? What do you think about the increase of smart motorways? Let us know in the comments below

Figures revealed by the comparison site, GoCompare, have shown that since 2016, the most prolific speed cameras have been predominantly located in Avon and Somerset; the top eight were policed by the Avon and Somerset police force.

The statistics have been obtained as part of a Freedom of Information request sent out to all 45 of Britain’s forces, although only 16 thought it necessary to respond, so how representative these numbers are is debatable. We also don’t know whether the different forces are using different trigger speeds.

However, statistics published one year ago also state that Avon and Somerset issued 95 tickets per 1,000 residents – second only to the City of London, so it would seem that they’re most likely at the top of the list.

148 Tickets

The most prolific camera, located on the M32, caught 22,350 speeders in the first five months of 2018, which equates to just under 150 motorists per day. Whilst Andy Williams from Avon and Somerset Police is insistent that they don’t want to catch speeders, you’d have to consider that even just a £100 fine per offence could typically net over £5,000,000 in speeding fines for the year.

“Speeding can have fatal consequences, it endangers the lives of others. We don’t want to catch speeders, we just want them to obey speed limits” states Andy Williams.

Between 2016 – 2018, a total of 386,969 speeding tickets were issued by the Avon and Somerset police, more than Bedfordshire, West Mercia, South Wales and Cheshire Police. You’d have to wonder just how that number is consistently higher than other forces – are they using lower limits than the rest of the country?

Top ten cameras

From the 16 respondents, these are the top ten cameras, their locations and the amount of tickets issued and when:

Strangely, the M32 camera caught just under 13,000 motorists in 2017, and yet after an increase in penalties, it has already caught more than 22,000 in the first five months of 2018.

Speeding and you

Although speeding offences are generally on the decline, the revamped and increased penalties (from April 2017) could see you being fined as much as £1,000 for an offence on a single or dual carriageway, and as much as £2,500 for a similar offence on a motorway. Regardless of road type, you could also be faced with 6 penalty points and anything up to a ban for serious breach of the speed limit.

Challenging a ticket issued as the result of a safety camera is almost impossible, and contrary to popular belief, minor details being wrong (such as the colour of the car) isn’t a defence that will stand up in court. The only ‘get out’ clause you could possibly use is if the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) hasn’t been issued in time – it should be issued within 14 days of the offence.

With that said, you may not necessarily receive the NIP within that time, but providing it has been sent to the registered keeper, the prosecution will go ahead.

There is never really a defence for speeding, and although police numbers are on the decline, the rise of technology means that prosecutions for driving offences are on the increase – it’s estimated that 1 in 3 motorists are fined every year, and that the police forces are raking in around £25,000,000 each year from fixed penalty notices.

If you feel that a speeding conviction has been unfairly issued, there is still hope – around 1 in 10 speeding fines are cancelled each year, although between 2016 – 17, Greater Manchester Police raised that cancellation figure to almost 28%, a total of 33,893 speeding convictions were withdrawn.

A lecturer in criminology at Liverpool Hope University found that 241,165 fines were scrapped in the same period, and calls for the ‘zero tolerance’ approach have been dismissed as unworkable, thanks to the mistakes being made.

What do you think about the proliferation of safety cameras? Are the authorities too reliant on them? Do you think that some view it as an alternative to policing? Let us know in the comments.