“Diesel restrictions and penalties – an unacceptable abuse of public authority.”

In 2001, Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) and CO2 emissions were inextricably linked, the rationale being that vehicles with a higher level of CO2 were the ones responsible for polluting the environment, therefore, they should be made to pay. Diesel, by its very nature produces less CO2, giving rise to a boom in sales and an increase in benefits – buyers were actively encouraged to purchase diesel.

As the implications of emissions and pollutants became clearer, diesel became a much-contested topic, with the government implementing stringent measures to counter the effect of diesel pollution, leaving those motorists that were encouraged to buy, severely out of pocket. Surely, the government has some culpability in all of this?

One petition agrees

A new petition has been created for just that – “to get policymakers to face up to their past mistakes rather than slap more taxes on people. The creation of further diesel restrictions and penalties is an unacceptable abuse of public authority.”

We’ve written extensively about the demonisation of diesel – increased parking charges, city-wide bans, congestion & T-Charges, all aimed at tackling the air pollution problem caused by vehicles, or if you’re a cynic, aimed at revenue raising for the authorities.

There is no denying that we (that is, the UK and the world as a whole) have a problem with air pollution, to argue against that would be an exercise in futility, but this petition is about innocent buyers following best-practice guidelines from the government, and being penalised for it. The modern-day equivalent would be being taxed for recycling your waste.

The other side of the coin

Of course, there is debate regarding the information; the government were acting on information that was believed to be correct at the time, it’s only through the passage of time that further information came to light and changed policy.

While that is absolutely acceptable – governmental policy is ever evolving – what is at issue here is the punishment being meted out on that advice, and the effect it’s having not only on the diesel drivers, but the motor manufacturing industry as a whole – as of September this year, new diesel sales were down by a staggering 42.5%, and residual resale values are through the floor.

The petition, created by Stuart Coster, isn’t looking to drop the charges, or lessen the severity of them, but to just put the whole ‘diesel is the spawn of the devil’ attitude on hold, giving the government, industry experts and manufacturers the opportunity to come up with a fair way of dealing with the situation, it could almost be said that we’re potentially looking at the automotive version of the PPI mis-selling debacle.

We’re not alone

One such answer could be similar to proposals set out by the German government – a retrofit of cleaner hardware, or viable scrappage schemes in which the manufacturers are offering up to €10,000 in discounts against a new car. While it does seem to have some of the manufacturers backing, it must be said that other brands are reluctant – after all, they were selling perfectly legal, legislation compliant vehicles, and therefore, hold no liability. Although perhaps some car makers may be on weak ground.

The reality is that the motoring industry, government and buying public need to take action, with an aim of reducing emissions as a whole, without the consumer being penalised for taking ‘expert’ guidance in effective measures against vehicle pollution.

There was a time that buying a diesel would see a financial benefit in year two of ownership, today, however, that maths is somewhat different: A diesel Volkswagen Golf would take sixteen years of ownership for it to be more cost-effective than its unleaded counterpart. That’s the price of diesel ownership.

Agree?

Whether you drive unleaded or diesel, this petition could be the start of making the government answerable for some of their motoring related decisions. It’s worth knowing that with just 10,000 signatures, the government must at least respond, and if 100,000 people sign it, it will be considered for debate in Parliament.

This isn’t so much about diesel as a single issue, but about justification, and making the government see that motorists can’t or won’t sustain the decisions for much longer; if you chose a diesel vehicle on the advice of the government or based on the fact that you were incentivised to do so, then you should consider signing it.

To be clear, we aren’t saying that we should avoid any action to help reduce pollution, nor do we believe that some penalties shouldn’t be applied for certain vehicles, but lets at least make it fair for both the motorist and the driver. PetrolPrices.com does not endorse this petition, we simply wish to make our members aware of a current debate happening, and if someone chooses to act on this then that is on their own choice and not from us. We have not been paid to promote this and have no connection to the petition owner.

You can sign the petition here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/228534

Do you feel that diesel penalties are fair? Should the motoring public make a united stand against demands from the government? Let us know in the comments.

The school run is rife with stress for many parents. Getting children to their place of learning and heading off to work is often a race against the clock, but parents and caregivers pulling up outside the school gates could now face a hefty penalty.

To protect the safety of children, counties around the UK are trying to tackle traffic around schools. Leicestershire County Council has made the news with its ‘School Keep Clear’ scheme. Costing half a million pounds, the scheme includes a camera patrol car and more parking restrictions around schools.

Smile for the camera

The patrol car, driven by Enforcement Officers, uses a mounted camera with automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) to catch parents found parked on zigzag markings outside their children’s schools.

Offenders will receive an automatic fine of £70 through the post, and, as with all parking fines, seeks to act as both punishment and a deterrent against repeating the violation.

Thirty-two Leicester schools who already have the mandatory markings are taking part in the scheme. A further 25 schools have signed up, awaiting work to make the zigzag zones enforceable.

Leicester was one county to install child-shaped bollards outside one of their schools, to get motorists to reduce their speed in the 20mph zone, by fooling drivers into thinking schoolchildren were trying to cross the road. The bollards cost £350 each, yet a car soon hit one.

After guidance from health organisations, some local authorities are considering ‘no-idling’ zones, to safeguard children against pollution, with fines for motorists who leave their cars running outside schools.

Other areas are going further by closing the roads around schools to most traffic during the school run, with some using temporary bollards at drop-off and collection times.

Even people without children will agree that the safety of children is an important issue. Reducing the chance of a road traffic incident and health problems from the pollution cars cause—for residents living near schools, too—is something to encourage. Yet, gone are the days when all children attend their nearest school and, with both parents often working, many people are trying to balance the school run and their own drive to work. These parents may have little choice but to use their cars.

Driving a wedge

In Leicester, Councillor Blake Pain, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport said:

“We’re launching the scheme which essentially makes more zigzag zones enforceable outside schools and we believe it will go some way to alleviating concerns.

“We work closely with schools and colleges to improve issues around on-street parking as well as pedestrian and pupil safety and we invited schools to register their interest in the scheme.

“Ideally, the schools and local communities will work together to encourage parents to park appropriately on the school run, and we provide help and guidance on school travel plans to help tackle the problem where necessary.”

Despite much support for such traffic-calming around our schools, the measures will not be popular with others.

Paul Whiteman, General Secretary at the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), said many parents had to make the school run via car on their way to work, and many schools and surrounding roads were not equipped for this reality, leading to congestion, pollution and road safety issues.

He added: “Fines are often a blunt tool for councils to use, and can drive a wedge between parents and schools even though head teachers have no role in administering them.

“Councils must work with schools and local communities to ensure that roads around schools work for everyone,” he said.

Striding for change

It may come as no surprise that yellow zigzag markings have confused many drivers over the years. While rule 243 of the Highway Code says drivers cannot stop or park near a school entrance unless forced to do so by stationary traffic, the rules are a tad ambiguous.

Although parking on the zigzag lines isn’t always an offence, these markings are to warn drivers not to park, for the safety of children. Therefore, you may commit an offence by ignoring the markings if you cause an obstruction, and, while the local authorities can’t issue a penalty, the police can give you a ticket.

In some areas, the zigzag lines come along with a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which makes it an offence to park and could land drivers with a Penalty Charge Notice fine (PCN), but these areas must have a sign to warn drivers. Without the sign, yellow zigzag lines are not legally enforceable. A PCN is a civil matter, not a criminal one and won’t result in a criminal record or points on your licence.

If you find yourself never able to park near your children’s school and it’s not impossible for you to get the kids to class any other way, why not consider an alternative mode of transport?

Lots of schools work together with the council and UK Sustainable Transport Charity, Sustrans to encourage schoolchildren to get to school without the car. There are schemes such as ‘Park and Stride’, Walking Buses, and other initiatives designed to encourage pupils to cycle, scoot, or walk to school.

Not only do these car substitutes reduce gridlock around schools and reduce pollution, but they also give children their important daily exercise. Something we can all agree is a good idea.

Are you a parent struggling to park during the school run? What do you think about these school traffic-calming measures? Do you live or drive near a school where these actions are in force? Give your opinion in the comments.

Owners of Ford vehicles fitted with the 1.0 litre and 1.6 litre EcoBoost engines have had to pay out thousands of pounds for repair work on their engines, due to a known fault that had a safety recall notice in America in 2014.

The problem dates back to 2012 and relates to an overheating issue which could lead to the car catching fire, or a catastrophic engine failure. It took until January 2018 for Ford UK to issue a recall notice, and until that point, owners were faced with settling the repair bill themselves – up to £8,000.

Separate problems

Despite both problems resulting in an overheated engine, Ford says that they aren’t related; the smaller of the engines suffering from a coolant hose problem, the 1.6 litre affected by localised heat and cracking cylinder heads.

With that said, some owners of the 1.0 litre EcoBoost have reported issues with their cylinder head, but that could entirely be a result of the overheating – many owners claiming that they’ve driven the car until it wouldn’t drive further.

The problem has been highlighted by an investigation by the BBC’s Inside Out programme; it found that hundreds of owners have paid to have their cars repaired, or traded-in at a loss due to Ford’s lack of acknowledgement of the problem. Even when that acknowledgement came, Ford was offering some customers a goodwill gesture of just 55% of the repair bill. It has since stated that all repairs will be covered by them, providing that they fit within the scope of the problem. This will be retrospectively applied.

Legal action #1

Law firm Roscoe Reid is talking to the members of the Facebook group ‘Ford EcoBoost Nightmare’ and others to investigate whether there are grounds for a Group Legal Action (GLA) against Ford, it says that this could potentially cost the U.S. car giant around £1 billion in legal fees and compensation, as this isn’t just about a failed product.

Ford has known about the inherent danger particularly associated with the cylinder head cracking, as this leads to hot oil spraying on to engine components and catching fire, in some cases, owners have reported their car being engulfed in flames within minutes of the first sign of trouble.

Ford did issue a recall notice for the 1.0 litre engine in March of 2015, and it says that 96% of the 44,682 affected cars have been fixed, but that it wasn’t classified as a safety issue due to the fact that a driver would be warned if the car were overheating, therefore they’d have time to take action. The question must be asked regarding the cracking cylinder heads on the 1.6 EcoBoost though?

With Ford issuing a recall notice in the U.S. back in 2014, you’d have to wonder how successful they’d be in fighting any GLA from the UK consumers – the EcoBoost Facebook group has over 3,300 members currently, and they estimate that nearly half have suffered a problem directly relating to the issues stated.

Affected cars

As has already been pointed out, Ford says that a great many of the affected 1.0-litre cars have already been fixed under their warranty or recall notice, but they’re contacting the 15,600 owners of the 1.6 EcoBoost engined cars to arrange a fix.

The cars affected are:

The 1.0 Litre 3-Cylinder Turbocharged EcoBoost engined cars such as the Fiesta and Focus manufactured between October 2011 through to October 2013, and the 1.6 Litre EcoBoost fitted to the Focus (from 2010) along with the C-Max and Kuga, and from 2012 onwards, the Fiesta ST.

If you’re unsure as to whether your car is affected, or has been recalled, your local Ford dealer will be able to give you the information you need or book your recall slot. In all honesty, there is very little you can do personally, aside from perhaps avoiding getting the car too hot. Equally, if you’ve already been faced with a bill for repairing your car because of this issue, you should talk to your dealer about reparation.

If you carry a fire extinguisher for just such an emergency, the safest advice is to ignore the fire and get yourself to a safe distance – do not open the bonnet; more often than not, the very act of opening the bonnet to fight the fire allows oxygen in to the engine bay, which feeds the fire. Leave it to the professionals.

If your car does start to overheat, don’t press on regardless – find a safe place to stop and let the engine cool naturally. Do not be tempted to aid the process with a liquid, and do not open the expansion cap – the water is beyond boiling temperature, and the system is pressurised.

Have you suffered any of these issues? Did you have to pay for them personally? What are your experiences of the Ford customer service? Let us know in the comments.

Christmas has come early for those who cross the Severn toll bridges frequently, as Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns announced that they will be axed on Monday 17th December, a week earlier than planned.

The toll, which was reduced at New Year this year, will be completely axed in a bold move aiming to improve the southern Welsh economy.

Historic move

The toll on the Severn Crossings has been around since the original bridge was opened in 1966, some 50 years ago. And now, half a century later, the toll will be removed completely to allow for “toll-free, free flow” journeys between England and Wales.

Mr Cairns, speaking at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, said “My number one aim when I became secretary of state for Wales, was to do away with tolling that for half a century has restricted and distorted the growth and connections of the Welsh economy.

Wales will be more open for business than ever. Scrapping tolls before the festive period is an early Christmas present for hard-working commuters who will be £1,400 per year better off.

This is just the start of my plan to pursue yet more growth for a stronger and a better-connected Wales. Scrapping the Severn tolls is an example of the Conservatives ensuring that all four nations of the UK thrive after Brexit, in doing so, transforming the joint economic prospects of south Wales and the west of England.”

The end of an era?

Toll roads have slowly phased out since the 1600’s turnpike roads, an ancient method of paying for the upkeep of roads was introduced. While very basic, they helped to keep roads maintained.

In the 1960’s when turnpike roads were formally abolished by the government, some still remained operated by companies or by local or national authorities. One famous toll road, the M6, remains one of the few roads to have a toll added in recent years, rather than it being removed.

Toll roads are unpopular with some motorists, who argue that we should either pay tolls or pay tax on fuel/Vehicle Excise Duty rather than both. This move, pushed by Mr Cairns, will save motorists who travel across the Severn frequently up to £1,400.

A pattern across the country

The removal of the toll at the Severn Crossings shows that tolls do not necessarily benefit the economy. The toll made the government around ten million a month, but it is hoped that the free entry to Wales will not only benefit the Welsh economy but help to improve relations, boost tourism and increase the business growth in Wales.

There are over 20 toll roads across the country, and while some argue that they help to reduce emissions nationally, others argue that the cost of tolls is just another financial burden on the motorist that they don’t need, creating an unhealthy relationship between the government and the motorist.

It has been suggested by some of our members in comments of previous posts to either charge the motorist on fuel duty or to charge them for using the roads. Some mentioned France, where major roads are tolled, and you pay every certain distance as a potential option, but others pushed for a complete removal of tolls, as in Scotland who abolished all tolls in 2008.

The pro’s and con’s

One of the obvious benefits to this is the reduction in cost for daily commuters. Some could save up to £1,400 a year for daily travellers. For companies who pay £16.70 a time for a lorry to cross the bridge, it means that the half a million or so a year that one haulier company could potentially pay, this can be invested in otherwise developing the business.

However, the downside could potentially be increased congestion in the area as the routes become more popular. When the tolls were removed on the Tay and Forth road bridges, environmental campaigners protested the change saying the extra pollution would provide no benefit to the Scottish economy, who at the time had just released a paper stating the need to reduce emissions drastically.

Should this toll removal be reflected in other parts of the country? Do you agree with toll fares? Let us know in the comments below

As winter looms ever closer and people start using their cars more, we often notice the shocking state of our local roads. New research by the RAC has revealed that the state of local roads is of the highest priority for drivers, above issues like the cost of filling up, people using their phones at the wheel and the aggressive behaviour of other motorists.

The RAC’s annual report on motoring, which takes a stratified sample of drivers from across the UK and asks them questions on motoring, has been released and reveals the issues that motorists themselves feel are the most important.

Dissatisfaction on the increase

66% of motorists agreed that over the last 12 months, road surface across all networks has deteriorated, with 78% of motorists stating the state of UK roads was “generally poor.” The widespread annoyance is not fixed on one area although those in the East of England, the East Midlands and Scotland have seen an increase in dissatisfaction year on year.

People are also unhappy that of the £4.6bn that the government raises from fuel duty alone, there is no clear long-term investment plan for local roads from that sum. Almost half of the motorists would be willing to pay more tax if they knew it meant the roads would be fixed and returned to full working condition.

Beast on the streets

After the Beast from the East earlier this year caused havoc on roads across the country, the statistics on the poor state of roads will have been affected by this. Nevertheless, earlier this year after the spell of bad weather, the Department for Transport announced a meagre £100 million extra budget available to local authorities to fix the worst of the potholes. While this may sound like a large sum, the actual amount needed to return our roads to a working state is around £9.3 billion. The £9.3 billion encompasses the maintenance backlog and was estimated by the Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) in their annual report earlier this year.

The annual report from the AIA showed that a fifth of all local roads are in “poor structural condition” meaning that they have a life expectancy of five years or less. This is three percent up from last year and continues with the rising trend. While some of this is due to the Beast from the East, the RAC Pothole Index, which is aggregated to remove seasonal effects, shows that the state of roads has reduced considerably since 2017.

Angry drivers on the phone

Directly behind the state of local roads, a high number of motorists listed the behaviour of other drivers as a concern for them, namely related to mobile phone use behind the wheel. The aggressive behaviour of other drivers is a major concern for drivers with it coming fourth in the list overall concerns.

Drink driving had a large statistically significant increase of people who knew or thought they had driven over the limit in the past 12 months, rising from 8% to 12%. This increase is worrying as the number of deaths attributable to drink driving increased in the latest batch of government statistics released.

The higher cost of motoring

The third highest concern for motorists was the rising cost of motoring, which includes car insurance, parking costs and any other taxes.

The vast majority of motorists say that their fuel costs have increased since last year, which reflects the rising wholesale costs, the weakened pound against the dollar and increased oil prices.

Alongside fuel prices, the only other place with an increase in concern from motorists was the cost of parking. Cash-strapped councils are charging more than ever for parking, and the cost of permits has increased as well. This could potentially be influenced by the surcharge applied by some councils, mainly in central London, to diesel cars.

What should change?

The RAC, acting as a voice for the motorist, recommended some changes based on the report. One solution they proposed was ringfencing two pence from fuel duty to go towards repairing roads. Over 10 years they estimated this would raise £9.4bn, enough to cover the current backlog. Motorists also said they were concerned with the seeming lack of a long-term plan to improve local road quality, and so the RAC recommended that the government produce a strategy on repairing roads and ensuring they can withstand all weathers.

A large majority of motorists were also concerned at the state of major roads on the strategic road network and so the RAC recommended that Highways England review their policy and processes on repairing larger roads in order to gain maximum efficiency.

As said by the road safety charity BRAKE, the RAC backed a call to lower the legal blood alcohol limit to 50mg in order to minimise the injuries and deaths that could potentially happen as a result of drink driving.

What do you think of the suggestions made by the RAC? What would you change in the motoring world? Let us know in the comments below