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.

Ministers from a cross-party group—the Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) committee—have called on the government to bring the contentious ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars forward to 2032; eight years earlier than planned.

The news comes after the government announced they were making cuts to the Plug-In Car Grant scheme and, as of next month, will no longer offer incentives to buyers of hybrid vehicles.

Targeted pressure

The government has received pressure from various quarters, urging them to bring forward the 2040 target, while other European countries, such as Denmark, Germany, and Ireland have a much more ambitious plan to outlaw the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, a decade before the UK.

Although the Government’s Road to Zero strategy includes the aim that by 2030, 50 to 70% of new car sales and up to 40% of new vans will be ultra-low emission, UK transport emissions have only reduced 2% since 1990, and an increasing number of advisers from climate, energy and industry sectors say the 2040 target date is too late.

The BEIS report says it wants to see hybrids included in the phase-out of petrol and diesel vehicles, but after anger from both the automobile industry and motoring organisations, MPs backtracked from more extreme plans to prevent the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 by allowing the lowest emission hybrids.

Further recommendations in the committee’s report were for the government to organise the required infrastructure for charging EVs, to make sure that buyers of electric vehicles enjoy preferential Vehicle Excise Duty rates (‘road tax’) and preferential rates on EV company car tax—The report also calls for the government to keep Plug-in Car Grants for new electric vehicles at their current levels.

‘Unambitious and vague’

BEIS Chair Rachel Reeves, who said the government must make 2032 the target for the sales of cars and vans to be zero-emission, said:

“The UK Government’s targets on zero-emissions vehicles are unambitious and vague, giving little clarity or incentive to industry or the consumer to invest in electric cars. “

Ms Reeves said the Department for Transport’s cutbacks of the Plug-in Grant Car scheme “drives the incentives of buying an electric vehicle into reverse,” and is a “perverse way to encourage drivers to move to non-polluting cars.”

“This is only the latest sign of the government’s inconsistent approach to developing the market for electric vehicles,” she added.

Despite the UK ranking as the fifth best European country in which to own an electric vehicle, with around 14,500 public charging points for EVs, the committee said the UK was far from ready for electric vehicles.

Reeves said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “was clear on the need to encourage changes in consumer behaviour, including increasing the switch to electric vehicles, to help decarbonise our economy. “

She added that the government needs to “get a grip” and organise the financial support and technical skills needed for councils to develop the necessary charging infrastructure and help make sure that electric cars are an attractive choice for consumers.

Mike Hawes, Chief Executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), who feels the current 2040 target is challenging enough for the motoring industry said a 2032 target would be “nigh-on impossible”.

Mr Hawes said because zero-emission vehicles make up only 0.6% of the market, the demand for such vehicles needs to increase by 17,000% in just over a decade.

The SMMT spokesman said, “This is unrealistic and rejects the evidence put forward by SMMT on behalf of the industry,” and added that car manufacturers are investing billions into zero-emission technologies but they recognise that “consumers need greater confidence and support if they are to buy these vehicles in the numbers we all want.”

Best country to own an EV

The government say they intend to make the UK ‘the best place in the world’ to own an electric vehicle and, although the car industry expects a rapid growth in sales over the next few years, with so many unknown circumstances ahead—such as whether manufacturers can make enough batteries to support the rapid growth of electric vehicles—you have to wonder if they can make this a reality.

Electric vehicles (EVs) make up 0.6% of the cars sold in the UK, and plug-in hybrids only 1.6%. Overall, they’re a tiny part of the 31.5 million registered cars on the UK’s roads. Although purchases of electric vehicles have increased, UK car manufacturers sold only 119,821 alternatively fuelled vehicles in the UK in 2017, but that number includes hybrid vehicles, too. Only 13,597 of the vehicles sold were zero-emission battery power cars, compared to the 1.3m petrol and over 1m diesel cars.

Buying an electric car is still much more expensive than petrol or diesel vehicles, so, motorists need to see the government offering practical and financial incentives before they can consider switching to EVs.

Many drivers, despite supporting the push to reduce carbon emissions, just can’t afford to buy a low or zero-emission car or find the lack of charging facilities—more so those in rural areas—daunting, and with the recent cuts to the Plug-In Grant scheme, the average driver is in a difficult position.

The upcoming Budget is an excellent chance for the government to discuss these issues and we can but hope they’ve been listening.

What’s your view on the proposed, new target? Are you for or against a 2032 target? Do you think the UK is ready for the changes the ban on petrol and diesel cars will bring? Share your opinion in the comments.

Back in May, PetrolPrices told you the European Union had put in place legislation that meant, from next year, all new electric cars must come with noise generators, which emit sounds when the car is travelling at low speeds.

Now, nine months before the new law takes effect, Jaguar has revealed the sound their I-PACE model will make—and the noise may surprise you. One thing is for certain, not everybody will like it.

Protecting the vulnerable

When electric vehicles (EVs) were first introduced, one of their selling points was that they were silent. Living in an ever noisy world, people welcomed fewer combustion engines not only polluting our air and planet but also our ears.

What EV designers didn’t expect was any downside of vehicles that make little to no sound, but the problem is that people can’t hear them coming—an even bigger issue for vulnerable people such as those with sight impairment.

People with impaired sight make up two million children and adults in the UK—no small number—and, while organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association are in favour of environmentally friendly vehicles, they also feel further measures are necessary to protect pedestrians.

Research carried out by the charity, Guide Dogs found:

Pedestrians are 40% more liable to get run over by a quiet hybrid or electric car than by petrol or diesel cars.

Between 2012 and 2013 there has been a 54% rise in pedestrian injuries in accidents involving quiet cars.

In some environments, a person may only hear a quiet vehicle just a few seconds before impact.

76% of people polled said quiet vehicles make the roads less safe for pedestrians with sight loss.

78% said these cars make roads less safe for older people and 75% said quiet vehicles make roads less safe for children.

From July 2019, manufacturers must fit sound generators to new electric and hybrid models so that the vehicles make a noise when they are travelling at low speeds. All existing quiet electric and hybrid vehicles must be retrofitted with this technology by 2021.

Yet the Guide Dogs charity says before that happens, there will be thousands more silent, electric and hybrid cars added to the current 45,000 plus electric vehicles already on Britain’s roads. This, they say, puts huge numbers of vulnerable road users at risk.

Has Jaguar got it right?

Nine months before the new law takes effect, Jaguar has released the sound their Audible Vehicle Alert System (AVAS) will make in their I-PACE model—the manufacturer’s first electric vehicle.

It took their engineers four years to produce a sound that is audible yet discreet and one the driver can‘t hear from inside the car. Jaguar first wanted to use a sci-fi spacecraft sound, but when tested, pedestrians would look up at the sky, not towards the approaching vehicle.

The finished sound is audible at speeds up to 12mph and comes from a speaker behind the front grille. The noise is audible from any direction and increases in pitch and volume as the car accelerates. When the car reverses, an additional tone registers the shift in direction.

AVAS isn’t necessary when vehicles travel at higher speeds when enough wind and tyre noise enables pedestrians to detect the car coming, so the car only activates the warning sound at slower speeds and isn’t, it may please you to know, constant.

Click the video below to listen to the AVAS in the new Jaguar I-PACE.

We are not responsible for any third party adverts or site content

Jaguar’s Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) technical specialist, Iain Suffield said:

“We developed the Audible Vehicle Alert System for the I-PACE to ensure the safety of all road users. Our potentially life-saving technology cannot be switched off and as the leading charity for people with sight loss, we are pleased to have the support of Guide Dogs to ensure real people are at the heart of our product testing.

“The absence of traditional engine noise from electric vehicles creates a problem for vulnerable pedestrians, such as the blind or visually impaired. This is especially true at low speeds in town centres and car parks.”

Libby Clegg, Paralympian, who twice has almost collided with quiet vehicles, said:

“As a guide dog owner, I rely on being able to hear cars to judge when it’s safe to cross the road. It’s terrifying to cross when you’re unable to hear quiet hybrid and electric vehicles. Ensuring all quiet vehicles have sound generating systems installed and switched on would ensure that millions of people, like me, who are living with sight loss, would be protected from the growing safety hazard.”

Both hybrid and EV vehicles already exist with warning sounds, which either the driver operates or ones that activate at low speeds. The sounds produced range from artificial beeps and chimes to those that mimic engine sounds or tyres moving over gravel.

Noise pollution

Many anti-noise and electric car advocates have fought against vehicles having artificial noise generators as a signal for pedestrians, as they claim these will just further add to noise pollution.

René Weinandy, Head of Noise Abatement in Transport for the German Environment Agency, argued that laws to fit electric vehicles with AVAS were being implemented without adequate scientific proof of their effectiveness or enough consideration of the negative side effects. Weinandy says manufacturers haven’t explored less harmful alternatives and that better options must be available.

Then there are those who say many luxury cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) are already quieter than some hybrids. If so, maybe the safety of pedestrians isn’t a problem with EVs, but with quiet cars?

What’s your opinion on the sound of Jaguar’s I-PACE? What sound do you think is best for EVs and hybrids? Do you support the use of noise-generators in these cars? Tell us in the comments.

Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology is being developed by Ford, and it could see the end of traffic lights, a reduction in congestion and reduced accident rates.

All too often, a car manufacturer makes a statement which could amount to a step toward a motoring utopia, only to then clarify that ‘this is our future goal’, or words to that effect.

Ford Motor Company have recently made such a statement – that the use of their technology could see the end of traffic lights, it may well reduce congestion, which in turn will see pollution levels diminish, and of course, a reduction in accident rates. Only this was more than a statement.

UK Autodrive

As part of the government-backed UK Autodrive programme, Ford has been demonstrating their new ‘Intersection Priority Management’ (IPM) system in Milton Keynes.

Essentially, the system allows connected cars to send and transmit data such as location, speed and the direction they’re travelling in to similarly equipped cars in the same vicinity, which then advises the driver of the optimum speed to navigate other vehicles or junctions without stopping, of course, the ultimate goal is to use this software as part of a suite of full-autonomy functions.

Ford says that it’s based on how humans negotiate crowded areas instinctively – it just happens, with no sudden stops or emergency avoidance action, and more importantly, little congestion.

Christian Ress, supervisor with the Driver Assist Technologies at the Ford Research & Advanced Engineering says: “With the connected car technology we have been demonstrating in Milton Keynes this week, Ford envisage a world where vehicles are more aware of each other and the environment they’re in, which will enable intelligent cooperation and collaboration on the road networks”.

Traffic lights

Research shows that on average, a motorist will spend two years of their life waiting at traffic lights, so any reduction in that time would not only be welcome but could be beneficial to the environment. It’s thought that reducing the time spent waiting at traffic lights would have a demonstrable effect on congestion, which in turn would, of course, help to lower city pollution levels. Maybe this could be part of the solution to end the spread of congestion charging?

Ford’s own research also says that road junctions cause up to 60% of Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs), so vehicles fitted with the Intersection Priority Management system will be inherently safer, with the software analysing the trajectory and speed of any vehicle around it.

In theory, this all sounds like an incredibly simple yet effective solution, but of course there are some flaws; for this to work as Ford intend, each and every vehicle on the road must be fitted with it, or a system that’s compatible with it, and presently, it still relies on the most unreliable link in the system – the human element.

Until vehicles are fully autonomous, there will always be an element of a driver believing that their judgement (or need) is greater than anyone else’s, or an indecisive driver that would prefer to leave a bigger gap than the computer says is necessary. It will never be able to counter the human element until it’s removed from the equation.

V2V and V2X

Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) connectivity aren’t new, most manufacturers are working on their own proprietary versions of a system, but it won’t be arriving at a dealership anytime soon, or at least not in such an advanced state.

In all likelihood, it’s doubtful that we’ll see systems as this being commonplace for a decade or so; it’s all very well one manufacturer showing off their capability, but until there is a unified set of protocols between manufacturers, that’s all it can ever be – a showcase for a manufacturer. Certainly, there are brands that have introduced limited self-driving capabilities on their vehicles, but think of them as a DVD in a digital streaming world – the technology works well to a degree, but at a fraction of what’s needed to make it a viable reality for the world.

We shouldn’t discount driver habit or education either – we’ve been taught to drive on principles based around the human being the smartest decision maker, learning to give that control to a device or microchip simply can’t happen overnight, it will take years of trouble-free learning for that to happen as a natural progression to our driving habit.

Our world embraces technology, and it’s fascinating to see just what technologies are around the corner, but as technology changes, so must society, and perhaps that’s the hardest to change.

What do you think of this technology? Is there a better way to control traffic flow and congestion? Would you be able to let the system take control? Let us know in the comments.

Plans revealed in government yesterday showed that the M26 will be closed every night for six weeks in order to convert it into a lorry park in the instance of a no deal Brexit to allow for customs and checks delays to not stop regular traffic flow.

Both ministers and manufacturers are worried that in the case of a no deal Brexit there will be long queues for freight vehicles. Highways England confirmed yesterday that they had been asked by the Department for Transport to look at how the M26 in Kent could be modified to allow for holdups at Dover.

Operation Brock

Something similar is already in place on the M20 to allow lorries to park on a 13 mile stretch between Junction 9 at Maidstone and Junction 8 at Ashford. The northbound carriageway remains open, but in contraflow, while the southbound is shut to allow for lorries to pass through.

Increased border checks mean that an extra two minutes added onto a check could cause delays up to 17 miles, Dover port officials have said. The current temporary solution on the M20 is not a viable long-term solution according to local MPs and council executives.

A report released under the Freedom of Information Act said “Customs checks on imports from outside the common market can take between five minutes to 45 minutes per vehicle

Port officials have warned that increasing the average time it takes to clear customs by as little as two minutes could lead to 17-mile traffic jams.”

The plans for the M26

Currently, the M26 has been closed every night for the last week to perform site surveys to understand the work needed to be done. Currently, this is the biggest practical implication that Brexit has had on the UK, so far it has mainly been legislation changes.

A spokesman for Highways England said: “The M26 will be closed in both directions overnight from October 15th to 19th between 10 pm and 5.30 am.

It will also be closed overnight from November 19th to 21st December between 10 pm and 5 am (on Friday night timings are 11 pm to 6 am).

This work is being undertaken by Highways England as part of the Kent Corridor Coordination Group programme of works.

There will be diversion routes for all vehicles and appropriate signage will be in place via M25/M20.”

Gates will be installed in the central reservation to allow for traffic to pass onto the other side of the road and then the northbound carriageway would act as a contraflow to keep traffic moving, while the southbound acts as a car park, holding up to 2000 lorries in case of emergencies.

Highways England also said: “As part of wider resilience planning, Highways England has been asked by the Department for Transport to develop plans to utilise the M26 to hold heavy goods vehicles, should further capacity be required in the future.

“We will be undertaking site surveys on the M26 during October leading to the installation of two gates in the central reservation to support the safe management of freight in the future if needed.”

Objections from MP’s

Tom Tugendhat, MP for Tonbridge and Malling, felt as though his constituency was kept in the dark over the works. Speaking to the government, Mr Tugendhat said “It’s come to a pretty pass when a member finds out that works have begun on a motorway to turn that motorway into a parking lot without consultation either with the local community or indeed with surrounding members.

The M26 works started last night. I wrote to [Transport Minister, Chris Grayling] in April asking whether or not this would happen. I was assured that works were not planned and only yesterday was it confirmed to me that Highways England had said that is exactly what was planned, despite having told me the reverse only a week earlier.”

Chris Grayling responded to the comments reassuring Mr Tugendhat that he did not plan for any of the contingency measures to be needed as he was confident “we will reach a sensible agreement [on Brexit].” Mr Tugendhat felt as though there had been no warning and local residents felt as though it would send lots of traffic through small single lane tracks in their villages, causing more disruption than necessary. It was also revealed that planning permission was granted without prior consultation of local residents.

Around four million lorries cross the Channel every year, and so any delay in crossing would cause insurmountable hold-ups and slow down delivery dates of groceries, meaning food won’t be as fresh, medications could take longer to deliver and there will be delays in all sectors.

Do you think these plans are the best way forward? Would you be comfortable using a motorway in contraflow? Let us know below

Last week, despite guarded recommendations by the European Commission and complaints from automobile manufacturers, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted for a 40% reduction in car emissions by 2030.

The European Parliament aims to persuade all 28 nations of the European Union to support the plan. The 40% figure came as a trade-off to appease both greens and those who fear harm to the car industry.

Moving the goalposts

After Volkswagen conceded, in September 2015, that they’d tampered with diesel engines to falsify emissions tests, vehicle emissions have become an even greater concern.

Following the scandal, all diesel vehicles have received broad scrutiny, with a lot of them found to emit much less pollution during tests than they do on our roads.

In last week’s meeting, the EU’s executive Commission supported only a 30% cut to emissions, while the environment committee wanted a 45% reduction.

The EU nations environment ministers will confer further this month, but a definitive ruling may not come before December this year.

This isn’t the first time legislation has changed to increase the percentage in which the European Parliament aims to reduce CO2 emissions. Last month, they raised the figure to a 30% cut by 2021 and before that; the aim was of a 15% decrease of CO2 by 2025.

Manufacturers must also make sure that, by 2025, zero and low-emission vehicles make up a 20% market share of their sales of new cars and vans. This figure increases to 35% by 2030.

The UK government has declared a ban on sales of all new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040. Other countries such as Denmark, India, Ireland, and the Netherlands have set their deadlines for 2030.

A clear majority

Despite government guidance welcoming the proposal as in line with UK policy, British Conservative MEPs voted against the 40% target. This is surprising as the UK’s own 2050 target is to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 80% of the 1990 levels, equating to a minimum of 3% decrease in emissions year on year. Once we leave the EU, how will this affect the plans as we will no longer have to meet official targets?

Some countries haven’t yet announced their opinion on the proposal, but Germany has resisted any further rise to the current 30% decrease in CO2 output recommended by the European Commission.

Germany says it has its own strategies to decrease pollution from older diesel vehicles by inviting car manufacturers to offer trade-in incentives and hardware fixes.

German interest group, Verband der Automobilindustrie VDA—also known as the German Association of the Automotive Industry—, which represents chief car manufacturers such as BMW and Volkswagen, said the European Parliament was setting “completely unrealistic targets.”

VDA President Bernhard Mattes said, “It is ignoring the technical and economic feasibility” of the proposal.

“It will not be possible to implement the targets in this timeframe,” he added, arguing that lawmakers risked endangering jobs in many European countries.

Clean Vehicles Manager at Transport and Environment, Julia Poliscanova, disagrees and said: “This vote is good news for the climate, for jobs in Europe and for the millions of Europeans who will start to enjoy cleaner air in their cities.

“A clear majority of EU governments supports Parliament’s decision to accelerate the transition to clean and electric mobility.

“Only Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria oppose higher ambition.

“We shouldn’t allow Germany to hold an entire continent to ransom over its failed diesel strategy.”

While potential job loss in the auto industry causes concern for many, others say these stricter targets will bring positive consequences for job creation in green technologies. MEPs have agreed that carmakers with average CO2 emissions above the targets must pay a fine into the EU budget, to pay for teaching workers affected by changes in the automotive sector to develop new skills.

The interesting aspect of this is that of Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania voting against the proposal, these three countries are developing rapidly and all contribute considerably to the current emissions figures. Do they perhaps need lower emissions targets to be able to increase their GDP or is there another reason for the resistance?

An electrifying future

Experts say there has to be an increase in the sale of electric and hybrid vehicles before it’s possible to see a considerable reduction in emissions, but while lots of people want an electric car, the cost is prohibitive to many.

Drivers also worry about the lack of available recharging sites and battery range. That said, this year’s Nissan Leaf boasts a range of 168 miles.

While prices for electric vehicle (EV) are reducing, you’re still looking at over £20k to buy a new EV. If that’s something you can afford, but you want to know more about the benefits, in terms of cost, you might the following information useful:

The UK Government provides an incentive for those who buy new Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles (ULEVs) with their Plug-in Car Grant. The dealership deducts the grant from the cost of the car when you buy. Depending on the category and model the car belongs to, you can get 35% (up to a maximum of £2,500 or £4,500) off the cost of the car.

A complete charge in a pure electric vehicle provides an average range of 100 miles and costs £2 to £4—much cheaper than it’ll cost you to drive 100 miles in a petrol or diesel car. Pure EVs costing less than £40,000 don’t pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED or ‘road tax’). All other cars, including plug-in hybrids, pay a minimum of £130. For the first five years of ownership, EVs that cost more than £40,000 have a VED of £310—cheaper than the £450 VED for a conventional car costing £40,000 or more.

Plug-in cars emitting 75g/km CO2 or less get a 100% discount from the London Congestion Charge. A regular user of this zone could make an annual saving of over £2,500.

Grants exist from Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) to install home chargers for plug-in vehicles via the Electric Vehicle Homecharge Scheme. This provides funding of up to 75% (capped at £500), of the eligible expenses of installation.

There are many other benefits to driving an EV, not related to cost, and, while these cars aren’t without their downsides, like it or not, they look certain to be a part of our motoring Future.

What’s your view on the European Parliament’s target of a 40% reduction in car emissions by 2030? Do you think it’s achievable? Is this too ambitious a goal or are we not going far enough to tackle global warming? What are your views on EVs? Tell us in the comments.

A new law drafted by the Minister for Home Affairs could make parking on private land without permission illegal. At the moment, there is no formal law on parking on private land, meaning that any car, unless illegally owned, cannot be removed.

A trial is to take place in Jersey to see if making ‘nuisance parking’ illegal is successful and cost-effective. The law proposed would allow illegally parked cars to be removed and also make it unlawful for a car to be clamped if left on a driveway or private parking area.

What is nuisance parking?

Nuisance parking, the act of parking on private lands, such as a driveway, without prior permission is currently legal thanks to a loophole in the law. All of this is about to change with the introduction of a nuisance parking law.

Currently, under the Freedom Acts 2012, anyone can technically park on your driveway and not face any consequences such as clamping or towing unless lawful authority has been granted which can often be a long and costly process.

The Minister for Home Affairs in Jersey, Connétable Len Norman, said: “Vehicles that are parked on private land without permission can be a source of great frustration for private landowners. Currently, private landowners have few remedies to deal with the problem, and it can involve a costly legal process. The introduction of this law will make it much easier for private landowners to deal with vehicles that have been abandoned on their land or that are causing a nuisance, obstruction or a potential hazard to the emergency services.”

Pricey parking

Parking can be one of the most expensive hidden costs of driving, with some motorists having to pay up to £8 an hour in central London boroughs, it is no wonder some people choose to park on private land, which is free and can be closer to their destination. However, the cost can end up being on the owner of the land.

Criminal law and civil law become funny when referring to cars parked on private land, as unless the car has no MOT, tax or insurance on it, the car can legally be parked on your driveway. Although some may find this thought ridiculous it is technically legal. Removing a car from private land means that the owner of the land would have to foot the bill, which can run into the thousands, factoring in the cost of getting it removed, legal costs and any compensation for damage to the car. In many ways, it can seem a lost battle if the owner of the car doesn’t remove it themselves.

Many people, when doing the school run or dropping off people, do often use driveways and private land as a holding spot. This can come as great annoyance to the owners of that land as they are trapped into their driveways, or find that it is impossible to manoeuvre out of their road.

Current laws

According to the Office for National Statistics, over 100,000 cars a year are towed away, and while it does not delve into the specifics, it seems likely that a considerable number of these will be for illegal parking. But this only encompasses the number of vehicles towed away for illegal reasons, and so it is a strong assumption that the number of cars parked legally but in a nuisance way is much higher.

To remove a vehicle currently requires a court order from a civil court for the removal of a vehicle or to pursue civil action against the owner for nuisance. Some may have the legal action covered by their home insurance.
Advice from policing question site, AskThePolice, on the subject of “Someone has left a car on my land, what should I do?” says:
“Under no circumstances would we advocate you merely pushing the vehicle onto a road and leaving it there, as you may commit an offence.

Don’t damage/clamp the vehicle or have it removed by a third party without first seeking legal advice. If you do any of these things, you may commit a criminal offence or the owner may pursue a civil action against you.

You may be able to obtain the cost of having the vehicle removed from the owner but you will need to speak to your legal advisor about this.”

The new law

This new law gives private landowners the chance to fight back against parking is sure to be well received. While the current trial is only happening in Jersey, there will be many motorists across the country who are welcome to this trial starting and the future it holds for them.

The draft Motor Vehicles (Removal from Private Land) (Jersey) Law – will allow landowners to:

• Remove vehicles from their land when the vehicles do not have permission to be there
• Apply to the Petty Debts Court for an order preventing persistent ‘nuisance’ parking on their land

The law is set to come into play, once debated and approved, at the beginning of 2019, and a selection of State approved removal companies will carry out the work to ensure compliance is met and all involved can trust the team carrying out the work.

Is this a good idea? Would you like to see this happen in a nationwide rollout? Let us know in the comments below