Traffic lights could be removed from UK roads says Ford

Oct 17, 2018

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.

Brexit no-deal could close the M26 motorway indefinitely

Oct 17, 2018

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.”

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

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

EU votes to cut car emissions 40% by 2030

Oct 10, 2018

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.

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

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.

Nuisance parking to become illegal

Oct 10, 2018

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.”

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

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

“Stop demonising diesels,” asks new petition

Oct 10, 2018

“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.

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

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.

Risk of £70 fine for parents outside schools

Oct 3, 2018

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.

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

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.

Ford owners forced to shell out over faulty cars

Oct 3, 2018

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.

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

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.

Toll road removes fees – a sign of what’s to come?

Oct 3, 2018

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.”

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

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

Fuel duty will not rise, says Theresa May

Oct 3, 2018

In a surprise move by the Prime Minister, Theresa May, delivered a speech at the Conservative Party Conference yesterday, October 3rd, promising that fuel duty will not rise in the budget released on the 29th October.

“On their side”

With this statement, the PM said that the government is “on the side of hardworking families.”
Mrs May demonstrated her rededication to those who just about manage each month, saying “Many people in towns and cities across our country, cannot take these [substantial savings] for granted. They are the people this party exists for.

They are the people for whom this party must deliver. It’s for them that we cut income tax. Introduced a National Living Wage. Extended free childcare. And froze fuel duty every year. Because for millions of people, their car is not a luxury. It’s a necessity.

Money in the pockets of hard-working people from a Conservative Government that is on their side.”

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

Response from the Chancellor

Philip Hammond, who last month we reported on wanting to raise fuel duty, has admitted that while the cost of freezing duty would come at great cost to the Exchequer, he acknowledged “The high oil price and the near-record pump price of petrol and diesel are also imposing a significant burden on motorists.”

“So we have decided that to support hardworking families, we will once again freeze fuel duty in the upcoming budget.”

Scrapping the rise will save the motorist £1.20 every time they fill up, on average, but will cost the Treasury £800 million over the course of the financial year.

Not all good news

Following in the wake of this news, it was also revealed that the current supermarket price war is set to be short-lived as the oil price has skyrocketed recently. This time last week it was at $80 and as of the 3rd of October, it was sitting at $84 dollars. Tensions between Iran and America, as well as a volatile pound amid the Brexit negotiations have all contributed to the high prices of oil.

For drivers of petrol cars, there has been some relief towards the end of September, with the price of petrol starting September at 131.1ppl at a national average, and finishing at 130.4ppl, thanks to the price war.

Diesel drivers, on the other hand, have seen the opposite with prices starting at 133.9ppl, dropping the following week to 133.4ppl and then at the end of the month hitting a high of 134.5ppl. While the price of diesel is higher at the moment due to “increased European demand for heating oil which is produced from the same ’part of the barrel’, but the higher oil price and weaker exchange rate means the effect is exaggerated,” says Simon Williams of the RAC.

Prepare for increase

Experts are warning that an increase in fuel prices is incoming and to be prepared. If you can, fill up your tank now as the prices are lower.

The RAC’s Simon Williams said of the increases “Petrol drivers will be hoping that September was the month that stopped the rot in terms of rising pump prices, but this may well not be the case. A dark cloud is hanging over forecourts as oil is at a four-year high and there is lots of volatility in the exchange rate due to the increasing tension of the Brexit negotiations.”

Check the prices near you by downloading the PetrolPrices app and you’ll be able to check the prices wherever you are in the country.

You can also save money on your driving by using some hypermiling techniques, see if any of these tips help:

  • Don’t use unnecessary speed. The Department for Transport figures states you’ll use up to 9% more fuel driving at 70mph than you would at 60mph and up to 25% more fuel travelling at 80mph instead of 70mph. The faster you drive, the greater your fuel consumption. Set off a little before you need to, to avoid feeling rushed.
  • Keep the car moving as much as you can. The ability to do this depends on traffic conditions and what’s happening on the road ahead, but slowing down and having to speed up again uses more fuel.
  • Keep your engine revolutions low by changing up gears early. You’ll lose speed fast if you let the engine labour. Try to keep the engine speed in the ideal fuel-efficient spot.

Do you think that the right decision has been made over fuel duty? How will the projected increases affect you? Let us know in the comments below

Motorists top concern revealed – and it may not be what you think

Sep 26, 2018

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.

<!-- /283405443/ptp_articles_midpage1 --><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><div id='div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --><script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] -->googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1552916378783-0'); });<!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></script><!-- [et_pb_line_break_holder] --></div>

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