If you’re driving and you can’t read a number plate 20 metres ahead of you and the police stop you, there’s a chance you could lose your license. New measures to cut down on drivers with poor eyesight have been announced with the police now testing people at the roadside to stop dangerous or reckless driving.

On the spot test

So far, three forces have announced they are trying a new system where they check driver’s eyesight if they are stopped. Thames Valley, Hampshire and West Midlands police forces will ask drivers if they can read a number plate 20 metres away from the roadside. Drivers who cannot manage this could see their license revoked immediately.

The trial will take place over the course of September with the aim of ensuring everyone driving on the UK’s roads has the right level of vision. Police plan to stop drivers and put them through the test at strategic points across the road networks of the three areas. The data collected will be used to get a more complete picture of the poor driver eyesight issue in the UK, something that is currently underreported in government statistics.

Take vision seriously

According to the government and the police forces involved, the idea is to get drivers to take their eyesight seriously. Sergeant Rob Heard, speaking on behalf of the forces involves, said that everyone needs good vision to drive because not being able to see a hazard or react to a situation quickly enough can have catastrophic consequences.

Currently, the legal limit is being able to read a number plate at 20 metres, which is around five car lengths away. This is a minimum requirement, and there is talk that a regular eyesight test with an optician may also become compulsory for people wanting to drive.

Cassie’s Law

The move is part of the Cassie’s Law initiative that means driver licenses can be removed within hours if someone is found to be posing a threat to other road users. The changes took place in 2013 following a campaign by Jackie McCord, whose daughter Cassie was killed by an elderly motorist who had been told not to drive by the police.

Before the law, the police had to write or fax a request to have a license removed, but under Cassie’s Law, they could telephone or send an email to speed up the process. This means police can even email straight from their vehicles to a dedicated email address at the DVLA and the license will be immediately revoked. Police are then able to prevent the person from driving any further.

The new trial could also see drivers facing prosecution if they don’t manage to comply with the test. There is an estimated 1.5 million license holder on the roads who have never had an eye test and crashes involving drivers that are suffering with poor eyesight are thought to cause over 2,900 causalities a year.

Antiquated tests

Campaigners also say that the UK’s testing system is antiquated and not fit for purpose. Once motorists pass their test with good eyesight, there is nothing further that requires them to be checked during the course of their life.

Vision Express and Brake are two campaigners who want the government to tighten up driver vision laws and ensure that testing is compulsory before taking a test but also each time a photocard license is renewed.

Brake spokesperson Joshua Harris said that it ‘stands to reason’ that good eyesight is a fundament of driving. But the current system doesn’t do enough to protect people from drivers whose eyesight deteriorates. And that it is ‘madness’ that there is no requirement for drivers’ vision to be tested during the years of them driving.

Vision Express added that their recent survey showed 75% of people think a recent eye test should be mandatory when someone is renewing their driving license.

What happens if you lose your license?

What about for drivers who fail the test, often unaware that they were breaking the rules or how poor their eyesight was? The DVLA can revoke your license for a number of medical reasons and then you would have to apply for a new one including paying as if the licence was brand new. They will also give you a disqualification period during which you cannot reapply.

Once this is finished, you can reapply eight weeks before the end of the period. You may need to provide evidence that you are fit and well to drive and the DVLA will advise about this. After this, they then inform you if you are being granted a new license, but can refuse again.

Seeing the problem

For many drivers, they just aren’t aware that their vision isn’t up to the standard. Corrective glasses or contact lenses usually make a massive difference in the difference between looking and seeing. With the new crackdown, drivers are having to seriously consider their eyesight and how well they can see when driving.

How’s your vision? Could you pass the 20 metres test if you were stopped? And do you think eye tests should be mandatory for drivers? Let us know below

Most of us drive around and use the sight of a police vehicle as a sign that we are being monitored. However, police in some parts of the UK are using unmarked HGVs to spy on drivers and to then send out fines for a whole range of minor traffic offences.

Caught out at the wheel

Highways England revealed that last year there were over 4,000 drivers who were caught out by just three unmarked HGVs that they operated while hundreds of unmarked police trucks have caught more. Police are filming and fining people not wearing their seatbelt, eating at the wheel or using their mobile phone.

The lorries don’t tow trailers and, the officers sit in the cab, one driving and the other with a video camera to record offences. Northamptonshire police are the latest to admit to using this tactic and caught 43 drivers committing over 50 offences in a recent session. The higher viewpoint means that officers can look into cars and see what drivers are doing, said PC David Lee of the force.

Nothing new

It turns out this isn’t a new practice – police have been using the tactic for three years. Last year there were 213 people stopped for a variety of offences including 12 who were found to be reading books or eating while driving. Highways England also use the tactic and caught one lorry driver with his foot on the dashboard while talking on his mobile phone while driving, a ridiculous and highly dangerous idea.

A total of 28 forces have used the HGV cab safety initiative since it was started in April 2015. Over 4,100 drivers have been pulled over in relation to over 5,000 offences during the first two years – almost two-thirds were driving and using a mobile phone at the same time. Other offences included drivers steering with their knees and even brushing their teeth while behind the wheel.

The Road Police Unit from Surrey Police enjoys showing some of the ridiculous – and dangerous – things they have spotted since using an HGV. Have a look here: https://twitter.com/i/moments/894570962364100608

Strange driving practices

The unmarked vehicles have caught people doing a range of strange things while driving. One woman with a young child in the rear seat was found applying lipstick and mascara while travelling at 40mph along a dual carriageway. She was using her rearview mirror to ensure her makeup was perfect, although her driving can’t have been!

Two delivery drivers were caught inhaling nitrous oxide, a substance that is illegal for human consumption, in their parked van in Birmingham. Another driver was seen driving along a London road eating cereal with a spoon and bowl, that car must’ve been quite messy! Other more common offences including not wearing seatbelts and not being in proper control of the vehicle.

Using a mobile phone while driving remains the top reason that the unmarked HGVs have stopped drivers. One sting in Kent in March operated for three days and stopped 44 drivers, 31 of which were using their mobile phones behind the wheel. This now carries six penalty points and a £200 fine if you are caught using a hand-held phone. Bluetooth headsets, voice command or dashboard holders are all acceptable alternatives.

Unmarked car rights

Some drivers are a little nervous about the concept of unmarked police cars, even if they are doing nothing wrong. Following stories of people being followed by fake unmarked police cars, some drivers are worried about stopping for a vehicle that doesn’t look like a police car. One driver was signalled to stop by an unmarked vehicle, but when the man in the car didn’t have a police uniform on, she drove away, and real police officers said she did the right thing.

Unmarked cars and vehicles do have the right to stop drivers but the officers driving the vehicles must have a police uniform on when they get out. They don’t have to have a reason to stop someone and can ask for your name, date of birth and to see documents such as driving license, insurance and MOT certificate. These can be delivered later to a police station if you don’t have them on you within seven days.

If you are unsure that the vehicle is a genuine unmarked police car, the official police advice is to drive to the nearest police station or a public place such as a petrol station. Even an occupied house could do in remote areas but don’t stop somewhere where no-one is around.

Signal to the car to show you have acknowledged them, and a real police vehicle will happily follow you. You can also use hands-free devices to call 999 if you are worried and they can check the details of the vehicle. Don’t drive off at high speed, however, or real police will think you are trying to get away!

Extra caution needed

The new tactic by police shows that just because you can’t see a police vehicle, doesn’t mean you can get away with dangerous driving behaviour. As more forces around the country start to use this approach, people will have to be even more cautious while driving.

Have you ever been stopped by an unmarked police vehicle? Or have you seen the unmarked HGV? Do you think that this is acceptable for the police to do? We’d love to hear about your experiences!

An official review of the speeding laws is underway and if Britain’s Road Policing Chief for the National Police Chiefs’ Council gets his way, motorists will face penalties for going just one mile per hour over the speed limit.

Chief Constable Anthony Bangham hit the headlines early this year after his comments in favour of a zero-tolerance approach to speeding received fierce backlash from other police leaders and motoring organisations who say this approach is unworkable.

The ‘buffer’ zone

As the law stands, motorists face prosecution if they break the speed limit by any amount.

While most drivers know about the current ‘buffer’ of 10% plus 2 mph, any decision to issue a speeding penalty remains at the discretion of the police officer and the individual police force, with police and fixed speed cameras both able to enforce the speed limits and issue speeding penalties.

Motorists who hit the top of the buffer zone can expect to receive either a fixed penalty notice or take the Speed Awareness Course, which, depending on where you live and whether you’ve taken the course before, will cost you £75-£100. Over a certain amount above the speed limit and drivers will receive a court summons.

Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, who is also the chairman of charity Road Safety Trust says the public overuse speed awareness courses and those who break the law should instead receive fines and points on their licences.

The minimum penalty for speeding is a £100 fine, plus three penalty points. The maximum speeding fine is £1,000, but this increases to a maximum of £2,500 for exceeding the motorway speed limit. of 70 mph where no further evidence except a police officer’s opinion suffices for a prosecution.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) speeding penalty guidelines

Speed limit: 20 mph
24 mph: a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course
35 mph: summoning

Speed limit: 30 mph
35 mph: a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course
50 mph: court summons

Speed limit: 40 mph
46 mph: a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course
66 mph: court summons

Speed limit: 50 mph
57 mph: a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course
76 mph: court summons

Speed limit: 60 mph
68 mph: a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course
86 mph: court summons

Speed limit: 70 mph
79 mph: a fixed penalty or a Speed Awareness course
96 mph: court summons

Don’t ‘whinge’ when you’re caught

Anthony Bangham, Chief Constable for West Mercia Police, caused a stir in January when he said the current 10% plus 2 mph speed allowance leads drivers to think it’s fine to speed. He said the message should change to show that the police were proud to enforce the law, and it’s neither unfair nor should come as a surprise to drivers who get caught and booked for breaking the law, driving at 33 mph in a 30 mph zone—these drivers should feel embarrassed.

Mr Bangham stated that speeding motorists shouldn’t come ‘whinging’ to the police when the law has established speed limits for a reason.

“We need to change our messaging and ensure greater consistency of approach when dealing with those who exceed the speed limit.

“The existing speed enforcement guidance could, in fact, be encouraging driving at these more dangerous higher speeds rather than the actual speed limits.”

The Chief Constable said if the current guidance receives the proper understanding and application, it may offer forces with the flexibility that’s necessary, but that over time drivers often misunderstand its rigid application and understanding, with an expectation that “the ‘norm’ is ‘it is OK to speed'”.

We’re all aware that speeding is both illegal, has the potential to be dangerous, and that we should all do our best not to exceed speed limits. Becoming fixated with our speedometers is dangerous, too, but we now have the technology to help. From mobile apps and Sat Nav devices with audible speed limit alerts, together with devices to warn drivers of speed cameras, there’s plenty to keep us all on the right side of the law.

Neil at Drivesmart, a company who provide speed camera detectors to help people to drive safer, commented: “I think if [it] was just 1mph over the limit it would be unenforceable due to speedometer inaccuracy. Also, the appeals process would be backlogged as there would be a massive increase in people contesting their tickets. I personally think people just need to slow down and having a detector in the car actually makes you more aware of what is around you.”

For those who want to be extra careful and want to know when any speed cameras are around, Drivesmart have an exclusive offer for PetrolPrices members of 30% off their Alpha Speed Camera Detector which tells you when any speed camera is nearby and warns you in enough time to allow you to check that you’re driving at a safe limit. If you’re interested, have a look here: https://www.drivesmartdirect.com/product/drivesmart-alpha/

Should drivers fear zero-tolerance?

There is always a split public reaction to speeding. One camp will say there’s no excuse for speeding and therefore no reason for good drivers to fear a speeding fine or penalty points. Others will ask for leniency and common sense, not a world where motorists trying to keep within the speed limit while watching the road into criminals.

While it’s true that the current police speed enforcement guidelines—set in 2011—are under review, reassurance comes from a spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who said no action will take place until ALL police chiefs review the findings. The representative also expressed that it wouldn’t be realistic to prosecute people for driving one mile per hour above the speed limit, which will bring comfort to many motorists.

What’s your opinion on the potential for a ‘zero-tolerance’ law? Would you welcome this approach to policing or is this approach unfair? Tell us in the comments.

Birmingham is the latest UK city to announce that it is creating a clean air zone in the city centre to reduce pollution levels. The city council revealed the plans at the end of June to heated debate but look set to go ahead with them, offering a template for other cities around the country. So will all city centres soon become clean air zones?

What are clean air zones?

Back in 2015, the government announced plans to improve the air quality in the cities and announced five new Clean Air Zones that it wanted to be operational by 2020. A Clean Air Zone is an area where the local authority introduces measures aimed at improving the air quality. At first, the plans involved the most polluting vehicles such as buses, taxies and HGVs but following a legal challenge, ‘non-compliant private vehicles’ were also included in the zone.

The clean air zone plan was enforced after the Supreme Court ordered the UK to fix the emissions problem we have in the UK, as it is estimated 40,000 people nationally suffer as a by-product of emissions.

The step is part of the broader Air Quality Plan that the government released with the aim of reducing dangerous pollutants in the air, which is especially dangerous in the city centres. The Clean Air Zones can come in two kinds – non-charging and charging.

In a non-charging zone, the focus is on improving air quality but without charging drivers. Efforts will go to things like retrofitting vehicles to reduce pollution and to change traffic flow to spot areas where vehicles are stationary for extended periods. In a charging zone, like the one in London, drivers will have to pay to enter it with their vehicles if they meet a particular environmental standard.

Birmingham’s zone

The plan announced by the city council in Birmingham involves charging drivers of higher polluting vehicles to use the city centre within the A450 middle ring road. The charge will be introduced in January 2020 with the aim of discouraging drivers of the most polluting cars from driving around the city centre.

The move comes as an estimated 900 people a year die in the city prematurely due to the problems created by pollution. It also ties in with the government’s plans to develop these clean air zones in major cities.

Opposition to the plan

Opponents to the project were quick to point out that the move would likely hit the poorest the most – people who can’t afford to buy newer, less polluting cars. There is also concern about the impact for small businesses in and around the city centre who cannot afford to buy new, electric vehicles but need to access the area for their business.

Others point out that moving the pollution from the city centre to other areas simply moves the problem and doesn’t solve it. So while the city centre may be pollution free, surrounding areas could become much more polluted. Moving the pollution around does nothing for the environment. By merely taking the pollution and spreading it out over a wider area you are surely reducing the environmentally friendly plans aim to move it and make it someone else’s issue. Surely a better thought would be to reduce the cost of public transport and increase the efficiency to allow people to access the city centres for less money and reduce emissions.

Problems for businesses

As the government plans to roll out the scheme to more places around the country, it seems few of us, including companies, are aware of the changes that are coming. One poll by YouGov found that 40% of small and medium businesses that they spoke to have no idea that the Clean Air Zone scheme was being rolled out.

Also, 38% had no idea that their vehicles wouldn’t meet the new standards and could see them charged anywhere from £12.50 to £100 to drive within the clean air zones. The survey was carried out by the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVLRA) whose chief executive Gerry Keaney said that results showed more awareness is needed for people to understand what the new zones would mean for them.

Do clean air zones work?

The other big question with the idea is whether the clean air zones work at all. People are concerned about moving pollution from one area to other or just not solving the problem in the way that was expected.

However, there is evidence that the clean air zones do work. One study of a low emissions only zone in Germany found that there were significant reductions in the particular matter in the air in these zones – this is the stuff that causes health problems. Moreover, research in London after five years of the clean air zone found that levels had fallen 2.5-3.1% compared with just 1% outside the zone.

There is less evidence that levels of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are reduced inside the zones. These are also connected to health problems and are created particularly by diesel vehicles. However, experts believe this is more to do with the diesel emissions scandal than anything – the cars emitted more NOx than they thought when doing their testing.

Cleaning up the city

In Birmingham, the levels of pollutants are much higher in specific areas than the recommended 40 micrograms per cubic metre. The pollutants are particularly harsh on the lungs of children as they are still developing. So the clean air zones are seen as a way to reduce the pollution and help make us all healthier – but help may be needed for businesses who have to use these areas and could face extremely high costs.

Would you pay to enter a city? Apart from charging vehicles, what do you think could be done to help reduce emissions? Let us know in the comments below

There are diesels that create up to 25 times more pollution than official testing shows? Surely, that’s a mistake?

We’ve written about clean diesels, false emissions, and wayward fuel economy figures in the past, and while diesel emissions are always a hot topic; it seems that not one week goes by without another nail being placed in the coffin of diesels, but the manufacturers really aren’t helping themselves.

A recent headline by Which? states that nearly 80% of modern, Euro 6 compliant diesels aren’t reaching anywhere near the 0.08g/Km emissions standard to be Euro 6 compliant one model, in particular, is 25 times over that limit. Is this just ‘click-bait’ or a genuine bit of foul play by car manufacturers?

Witch? hunt?

Which? have tested 61 new car models (all diesel) since the beginning of 2017, with the intention of seeing just how close they are to the Euro 6 rate for emissions, specifically Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). 77% of the cars tested failed to meet the 0.08g per kilometre standard, with the Subaru Forester 2.0d Sport Lineartronic coming in at 2.022g, but on average, the NOx levels were at 0.27g/Km.

However, it must be pointed out that the testing wasn’t Euro 6 compliant testing, in fact, a spokesperson for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said: “The non-official test employed by Which? is very different from the current EU testing, so it’s no surprise it delivers different results. Only the official tests accurately compare models on a like-for-like basis”.

The different test

Even under the new Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP), testing is mainly done under laboratory conditions, giving the manufacturer the ability to ‘optimise’ their test vehicle(s) settings, this can include switching to an ‘eco’ mode, tyre inflation, low fuel loads (reduced weight) and a number of other considerations.

Whereas the Which? test runs the vehicles in the standard mode that they start up in (no eco setting), with 200kg of weight (roughly the equivalent of two occupants and a full tank of fuel), with all systems – air conditioning, lights and radio in use and they include a motorway phase.

Clearly, it would seem that some manufacturers can optimise their vehicles better than others, but there were also a number of vehicles that fell way below the Euro 6 standard, even under the more arduous testing conditions, so what (if anything) does the test mean?

Legally speaking, the car makers aren’t breaking any law – they’re doing exactly as they’re allowed to do under the test procedures, this isn’t a ‘Dieselgate’ scandal, merely … an exercise in understanding and applying rules.

Comparisons

Targeting the consumer angle is a moot point – the WLTP tests (as the SMMT point out) are comparing like-for-like, which means the end result is a direct and truthful comparison between models or brands, so as long as you know that Car A has fewer emissions than Car B, you’re in possession of the relevant facts and figures.

Yes, understanding that in the real world, under strenuous conditions, Car A doesn’t actually get near the advertised figure is all well and good, but let’s be honest, if emissions and pollution levels drive your desire, you won’t be looking to buy a diesel, regardless of what the manufacturer claims.

The best and the worst

The top 5 dirtiest diesels:

1. Subaru Forester 2.0d Sport Lineartronic – 2.022g/km
2. Renault Grand Scenic Energy dCI 160 Bose Edition EDC – 0.896g/km
3. Renault Captur dCI 90 Intens – 0.725g/km
4. Peugeot 5008 BlueHDi 150 Allure – 0.700g/km
5. Ford Kuga 2.0 TDCi S/S Vignale 4×4 – 0.655g/km

And the top five cleanest:

1. BMW 2 Series 218d Active Tourer Steptronic – 0.014g/km
2. Mercedes-Benz E220d 9G-Tronic – 0.024g/km
3. Mercedes-Benz E220d 9G-Tronic Estate – 0.028g/km
4. BMW X2 xDrive 20d M Sport X Steptronic – 0.031g/km
5. Vauxhall Grandland X 2.0 Innovation Automoatic – 0.034g/km

Testing times

The WLTP testing has been in force (for new car types) since September 2017, with all new registrations being compliant by September 2018, but as we’ve pointed out, it will really only be useful for a comparison against different models or brands – not as a benchmark of what you can expect (especially in terms of MPG).

If you’re specifically looking to purchase a new vehicle, and it has to be diesel, then the figures will be relatable and perhaps a better indication than previous testing processes – the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) was introduced back in the eighties, and as such, it left a little to be desired as technology marched on, despite some flaws, the WLTP has to be better (and more accurate) than the NEDC, but whatever the process or procedure, there will always be an organisation willing to decry it as unrealistic.

Do you think better emissions tests should be introduced to reflect real-world driving? Is it a good thing that diesel will be banned from sale in 2040? Let us know below

Drivers have a lot to watch out from behind the wheel of the car. From crazy other drivers, pedestrians to cyclists, there is a lot to take in as well as road conditions, meaning that drivers have to be alert all the time to avoid collisions.

However, most don’t know that it isn’t just the collision or using a phone that could get you a fine – driving too close to a cyclist when overtaking could now cost you £100 and three penalty points under new laws introduced this year.

Minimum distance

According to the new law to protect cyclists, the driver needs to leave a minimum distance from a cyclist when overtaking or travelling alongside the bike or they could receive a fine. This would be £100 and three points on the licence for being too close to a bike on the road.

So, how close is too close? According to experts, the recommended distance between car and cyclist is 1.5 metres. If you are caught within this distance, then you face the potential of a fine and points on your licence, to the same value as speeding. This has replaced the previous recommendation in the Highway Code which merely said that drivers should leave ‘plenty of room’ when overtaking someone on a bike.

Rule 163 also adds that drivers should leave ‘as much room as when overtaking a car’ when they overtake a motorcyclist, cyclist or even a horse rider. Other reasons that drivers could receive the new penalty will be straying into cycle stop boxes at traffic lights and failing to give cyclists going straight ahead priority at left turns.

However, could this new regulation of defining a distance be hard to enforce and therefore catch? Whereas before ‘plenty of room’ was down to the individual driver and police officer, now having a set minimum distance means that the judgment of distance will require greater awareness from drivers of what exactly 1.5m is.

Encouraging cyclists

Cycling Minister Jesse Norman is pushing to show that there are enormous benefits for walking and cycling. He also wants more of a climate of ensuring drivers have the skills and knowledge to safely manage to be on the road with more cyclists, as opposed to just catching and punishing them.

The government wants to encourage more people to grab a bicycle and ride around town with some £500K in funding behind introduced for new safety schemes. This will encourage people to use bikes for short journeys and cut down on accidents and also car use. Learner drivers will also be given more training on being able to safely pass cyclists, as part of the current learning process.

Worrying figures

The law was introduced when the Department for Transport showed that 102 cyclists were killed on the UK roads in 2016. This was alongside 448 pedestrians, and another 8,500 cyclists received serious injuries. This video shows the danger of not overtaking cyclists safely, and while the vehicle in question was removed from the road for having no MOT, the damage is still shocking.

As they encourage the use of bikes, the government are also looking into bike safety. Compulsory bike helmets are something that is likely to be discussed going forward, even though campaigners have already dismissed the idea as counterproductive. They are conducting a review with cyclists’ groups that is due to end later this month.

Death by dangerous cycling

Another new cycling related law to be introduced is the new ‘death by dangerous cycling’ or ‘death by careless cycling’ which is undergoing a consultation period to see if it should be introduced. One campaigner, Matt Briggs, lost his wife to a cyclist and said the current ‘arcane laws’ need to be changed.

Causing death by driving under certain conditions has a maximum sentence of 14 years. Death by careless driving has a maximum sentence of five years. However, there is currently not a set law for if you are on a bike rather than in a car. The cyclist who killed Mr Brigg’s wife Kim received just 18 months. The cyclist was riding a fixed gear bike with no front brakes when he hit Mrs Briggs as she crossed the road.

The law used was causing bodily harm by ‘wanton or furious driving’ which was originally designed to handle Victorian-era horse-drawn carriages and had a maximum sentence of two years. This is the closest thing that a dangerous cyclist can currently be charged with. It is clear that as more people take to the road on a bike, there need to be clearer laws around their behaviour and how they cycle.

Costly mistakes

While drivers can face a £100 fine and three points, lorry drivers can face a lot more if they are caught driving too close to a cyclist. One lorry driver in the West Midlands was recently fined £1038 and had five points added to his license after being caught by police. He was caught under the GiveSpaceBeSafe campaign by West Midlands police to improve driver behaviour.

Road safety experts recommend drivers brush up on their Highway Code and also the latest advice on things like passing cyclists to reduce the risk of getting a fine. Police forces around the UK are already taking steps to start issuing the penalty when drivers are caught breaking the new law.

Do you think these new laws will help? Will these enocurage people to cycle rather than drive? Should cyclists have the same laws for injuring pedestrians as drivers? Let us know below

Social acceptance or anti-social behaviour plays a big part in how the world changes and evolves over time; there are many things that were once deemed acceptable, or at the very least, excusable, and drink driving was just something that many people did, despite it being illegal, but the law only came into force in January 1966.

Today, drink driving is about as heinous a crime as you can get when it comes to motoring, and rightly so. Despite the shift in social acceptance, there are still a number of drivers who believe that they make for better drivers when under the influence – over 70,000 motorists are convicted each year of drink driving related offences.

Statistical rise

The road safety charity Brake is calling for a significant cut to the blood alcohol limit for motorists after figures released by the Department for Transport (DfT) have shown an increase in the number of road traffic collisions in the last year, as a result from driving whilst drunk.

Comparing figures for the 1970s opposed to 2018, it’s clear that things have changed – in 1979, there were 1,640 deaths attributable to drink driving, in 2016, that figure was just 240, but that’s a 7 percent increase from 2015.

It could be argued that the rise is a statistical anomaly – figures have remained fairly static since 2010, but the bigger picture is that there were approximately 9,040 serious injuries or deaths due to drink driving, and whatever the figure, is there really any excuse for it?

Reduced blood alcohol

Currently, the law states that the ‘acceptable’ limit is 80mg of alcohol to 100ml of blood, and due to other factors such as weight, sex, metabolism, stress levels and even the amount of food eaten, there are no hard and fast rules as to what that constitutes in terms of actual drinks consumed.

It has been shown that drivers with a blood alcohol level of between 50 – 80mg are at least twice as likely to be involved in an accident as those with no alcohol, and up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatality. It’s for this reason that Brake are calling for the limit to be reduced to just 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.

Joshua Harris, Director of Campaigns for Brake said: “Current regulations give a false impression that it’s safe to drink and drive, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The current laws lack clarity, are badly understood, and give the green light that mixing alcohol with driving is acceptable, it isn’t”.

Penalties

There are two separate charges relating to drink driving – being in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink, and driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink.

Being in charge of a vehicle while drunk could see you landed with up to three months imprisonment, a £2,500 fine and a potential ban, whereas actually driving (or attempting to) could get you up to six months imprisonment, a minimum one-year driving ban, and an unlimited fine. If you’re caught twice within a ten-year period, the driving ban will be for three years.

In 2010, Sir Peter North was commissioned by the Government to conduct a review of the drink and drug driving laws, and amongst many recommendations, one, in particular, stands out:

The North Review made the recommendation to lower the drink driving limit to 50mg of alcohol, believing that it could save ‘a significant number of lives’ – at least 43 per year. But the then Government concluded that “improving enforcement is likely to have more impact on the most dangerous drink-drivers than lowering the drink-drive limit”, and they didn’t believe that it would be cost-effective.

They did, however, make some minor changes to help stop drivers ‘getting away with it’ – removing the right for a blood test when the evidential breath test was lower than 40% over the legal limit. It was believed that the delay in getting the blood test could allow for time for the alcohol to leave the body.

No exceptions

There really is no acceptable excuse for drink driving, if you’re on a night out with friends, make sure there is a designated driver, or use alternative forms of transport. Equally, if you find yourself in an emergency situation, you should try and find someone else to drive, or again, find an alternative method of transportation.

The penalties for driving while drunk are harsh, but they aren’t just legal – along with the inconvenience and large fine, there is a social stigma, increased insurance cost, perhaps even a threat to your livelihood – is it really worth it?

What do you think about reducing the limit? Should the penalties be harsher? Is it practical and fair to reduce the limit? How will it impact the pub trade? Let us know in the comments.

A recent survey says over a quarter of UK drivers feel trapped within their car finance agreements because they can’t afford the final balloon payment at the end of the term, resulting in them entering yet another—often more expensive contract.

Car subscription company Drover, surveyed 1,500 drivers and discovered that 65% of those who considered themselves entangled by their car finance agreements took out another Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) because they didn’t want to face losing the investment they’d made into the car.

Bad deals and confusion

With around 23% of UK motorists (8.7 million) signed up to a car finance agreement, the Drover survey shows 28% of people report being ‘trapped’ and full of regret about the contract they entered.

Of those people, 60% say they can’t afford to end the agreement early and just over a third of these drivers are in their third finance arrangement, with 54% saying the interest rate increases with each new contract. What’s shocking, is that 43% of the survey respondents couldn’t say what their current interest rate was.

Sixty-one per cent of the motorists who considered themselves trapped said they’d taken out a bad deal. Thirty-four per cent reported being confused by the various deals on offer. So, are dealers offering transparent information to would-be customers? That’s something the Financial Conduct Authority is looking into, and whether products are being mis-sold and if dealers are practising responsible lending based on the individual’s ability to repay their loan.

If this survey is a correct representation of most UK drivers this amounts to a huge number of people unhappy or confused about their contracts, so why did they sign up for PCP in the first place? Forty-three per cent said it was to end the stress of car-buying, with almost half of the 1,500 survey respondents admitting to not shopping around before signing their contracts.

‘Netflix’ for cars?

With the many strands of commitments required for the privilege of driving a vehicle, such as insurance, road tax, breakdown cover, servicing and maintenance, could it be time for motorists to look at an alternative option?

Subscription services are more popular than ever, to enjoy anything from television to food, to clothing. Is it any wonder that companies such as Wagonex and Drover have applied this model to car usage, too? A global 2017 study showed that 74% of car executives believe more than half of car owners today wouldn’t want to own cars in the future.

Customers of car subscription services pay a monthly amount that covers everything except fuel, and with no penalty fee if they cancel.

Founder and CEO of Drover, Felix Leuschner, said: “Buying a car is [a] daunting prospect for many drivers – not only is there so much choice, but car finance deals are hugely confusing. We are aiming to help drivers by providing a more flexible way to run a car without the commitment of car finance.”

Reduce your PCP costs

A Personal Contract Purchase is a loan to get a car. Unlike a personal loan, you don’t pay off the full value of the car and you don’t own it at the end of the deal unless you choose that route. The deposit is around 10% of the car’s price but certain car manufacturers’ finance arms offer ‘deposit contributions’ of £500-£2,000 or more if you’re buying a new car—if you take out their finance. The larger the deposit you pay, the less you need to borrow as a loan.

There are dealers who offer 0% but you should be wary of this, as costs often hide elsewhere, such as in an inflated balloon payment or a higher ticket price than you would’ve paid had you bought the car outright.

Only 20% of people with a PCP deal buy the car at the end of the term. If you don’t plan to buy the car, see if leasing is a better choice. You don’t own the car when you lease, but you pay less each month.

By lowering your annual mileage, you’ll lower your repayments, but don’t enter a low mileage amount on your agreement if you have concerns you’ll exceed it, or you may face expensive over-mileage charges. Understand, too, that the dealer will charge you for any damage to the car, such as scratches or dents, which you must pay for when you return the car.

The Automobile Association calculates that, on average, new cars lose 60% of their value within three years and because with a PCP you finance what the car depreciates, it’s wise to choose a car that’s more likely to keep its value. The best way to lower PCP repayments, though, is to opt for a cheaper car.

Have you ever signed a Personal Contract Purchase? Are you feeling trapped within your contract? What’s your opinion on car subscription services? Do you think they’re the future or will they cost drivers more money? Tell us in the comments.