The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Auto Express Exclusive: the high cost of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

We find out that rash planning means Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, which were designed to improve residents’ lives, are doing more harm than good!

Local councils across the country have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on traffic reduction schemes that have been riddled with problems, including increased pollution, delayed emergency service vehicles and divided communities. Auto Express has uncovered how local authorities spent or plan to spend millions on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), despite numerous complaints, alterations and reversals of such schemes.

After hearing about issues relating to LTNs, we began researching these projects, sending a series of Freedom of Information requests to the UK’s local authorities in November last year.

We asked if councils had installed or plan to install any LTNs, how much they have spent or plan to spend on them, if any schemes have been altered or reversed, and what penalties had been issued to drivers contravening the new rules.

What are Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Giving road space over to pedestrians and cyclists isn’t new, but the recent rise in Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) owes everything to the coronavirus pandemic.

With public transport problematic due to social distancing and Covid-19, in May last year the Government announced a £250million ‘Emergency Active Travel Fund’. Local authorities could apply to create schemes that encouraged walking and cycling.

Four types of scheme have been popular with councils, and all have the potential to make driving more difficult: widened pavements to allow for greater social distancing; new cycle lanes to encourage people onto bikes; ‘School Streets’ to bar motor vehicles from schools at pick-up and drop-off; and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, which divert motorists from residential roads onto busier boundary routes.

LTNs can be created by closing off roads with bollards or planters, or can be enforced with signs telling drivers not to use the streets. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras can issue fines to vehicles who pass them, or those that aren’t registered to an address within the LTN.

The first tranche of money released by the Government saw £42million issued to councils for temporary schemes; the second tranche, worth £175million and released in November, was for more permanent projects. The Scottish Government, meanwhile, has funded similar ‘Spaces for People’ programmes, while London’s LTNs fall under its Streetspace scheme, with money coming from both central Government and Transport for London.

While all these programmes have the potential to make driving more difficult, LTNs have been the most controversial and problematic type of scheme to arise from the Active Travel Fund.

Costs we uncovered

Number of schemes completed	138
Number of schemes planned	76
Number of schemes reversed	13
Number of schemes altered	25
Cost of completed schemes	£7,681,005
Cost of alterations	£86,099
Cost of planned schemes	£7,150,421
Cost of reversing schemes	£51,762
(Cost of reversed schemes*	£922,721
Total cost so far	£14,969,287

*Reversed schemes accounted for in cost of completed schemes

Failed schemes, wasted money

Wiltshire Council spent £412,000 on an “exciting and ambitious project” that saw Salisbury city centre closed to through traffic on 21 October last year. Of that total, £250,622 went on “consultancy and monitoring” fees for the LTN, £64,800 was spent on its construction, £92,250 worth of enforcement cameras were installed, and changes to road signage cost £4,328.

Yet that money would seem to have been entirely wasted, because Wiltshire had to spend a further £10,000-£15,000 suspending the scheme “indefinitely”, returning Salisbury to its pre-LTN state “due to impacts on local businesses during 2nd lockdown”, and a lack of “pivotal” support from Salisbury City Council. Wiltshire said it was “disappointed and surprised” by the city’s decision, because “early evidence” showed the scheme was having a “positive impact”, and the city council had “previously provided clear backing for this scheme”.

Two LTN schemes in Redbridge, London, costing £297,971 were scrapped after little more than a month following residents’ complaints, with a further £29,762 spent reinstating the roads. The City of Westminster Council, meanwhile, held a local consultation and decided not to implement its Paddington and Hyde Park scheme, but it still spent a projected £137,897 on design, engineering, consultation and other fees.

Of the 138 schemes we learned had been implemented, 25 had been altered at a cost of £86,099, while a further 13 had been scrapped after feedback and complaints from residents and emergency services.

Wakefield Council in West Yorkshire spent £40,000 installing then reversing an LTN, while Nottingham City Council spent £33,250 on two LTNs, before deciding that the “application of temporary barriers was not entirely successful” following feedback from residents.

The total costs for the LTN reversals we uncovered run to at least £974,483, but some authorities had yet to calculate how much had been spent on installing failed schemes. Wandsworth Council, for example, spent £17,000 suspending seven LTNs, but would not tell us how much the cancelled projects had cost to implement because their calculations were in “draft format”. Yet the council still has plans for a further nine schemes, despite the cancellations, and a report uncovered by The Daily Telegraph that showed levels of nitrogen dioxide – a harmful gas present in exhaust fumes – decreased in some streets after the LTNs were scrapped.

Emergency services face delays

Councils were quick to spend money released by central Government, but the impact closing roads has on access for emergency vehicles appears to have been ignored in some cases. Islington Council in London had to alter an LTN road by removing a bollard “after feedback from emergency services”. Wandsworth Council told us the seven LTNs it reversed were cancelled partly due to “concerns with emergency access”.

E-mails seen by Auto Express show London Fire Brigade having to “object” to Ealing Council’s proposals to use “immovable concrete blocks” in the road to create LTNs. Firefighters had to explain to planners that the blocks “may have a negative effect on any emergency attendance made to incidents within these areas”.

The Metropolitan Police, meanwhile, told Ealing that one LTN brought concerns about “an impact on [officer] response times for the surrounding area”. The police added the LTN “could also create a crime ‘hot spot’ where criminals will use these types of closures to evade police”. The Met Police also told Transport for London and other councils that roads closed with bollards had “delayed response times to crimes”.

London Fire Brigade and the Metropolitan Police were at least consulted prior to the installation of Ealing’s LTNs, but the chief executive of London Ambulance Service (LAS) wrote to the head of the council, saying: “I appreciate you were under the impression that the LAS had been fully consulted on LTN schemes ahead of implementation, but, sadly, I am afraid this was not the case.”

One incident in Ealing saw an LAS manager ask the council to permanently remove LTN barriers after paramedics were delayed when attending a call-out, and were unable to park near an elderly patient’s home. The 95-year-old lady had to be transported “some distance” in the rain to the ambulance.

The manager said the crew was also “delayed getting to the patient’s address” and requested ANPR cameras replace the barriers. A local councillor told the authority’s highway department the incident was an “indignity”, although fortunately the delay didn’t cause any harm to health.

Ealing Council admitted it didn’t consult with LAS at the same time as the police and fire brigade, apologised for not doing so, and made a “number of changes” following feedback. Ealing told us it had “been assured by emergency services that no delays have occurred which have impacted on their response times”. The council also insisted “all emergency services were consulted and continue to be engaged” but admitted “There was an issue with an incorrect E-mail” during the consultation”.

A million a month in fines

Local authorities spent handsomely on LTNs, but a lot is being recouped from fines issued to drivers entering streets that they are no longer allowed to use. Data obtained by Auto Express shows that in a single month, Ealing Council issued 7,125 penalty charge notices worth £926,250 (£463k if drivers paid within 14 days).

It’s a similar story for other councils in London. Drivers in Lewisham were charged £3m in LTN penalties between June and October last year, while Enfield Council had taken £1.25m from 33,968 fines issued since mid-September. Merton Council raised up to £53,040 from 408 LTN fines between May 2020 and January this year. Elsewhere in south London, Lambeth Council spent £301,828 on surveillance cameras in five LTNs, justifying this by saying: “Most people in Lambeth don’t own a car, but all motorists on our borough’s streets are required to drive legally and obey the law at all times.”

Councils in London have greater powers than most local authorities, because they are able to issue penalties for moving traffic offences. But with new rules set to allow more councils to issue such fines, authorities across the country may soon enforce their LTNs with £130 fines. Salford City Council admitted exactly that to Auto Express, stating it will issue LTN fines “dependent on the availability of Part 6 Traffic Management Act powers”.

Pricey planters

One method that councils use to close roads to cars is to place planters – wooden boxes filled with earth and flora – across the carriageway, but they don’t come cheap. The Royal Borough of Greenwich in south-east London spent £31,740 on planters at the five LTNs that cost the council a total of £106,439. Redbridge Council, to the north-east of the capital, spent £4,800 storing planters used in its two cancelled schemes.

But the council with the greenest fingers we found was Lambeth in south London, which plans to spend £90,390 on planters across four LTN sites. The council said that this includes purchase, installation and up to three years’ maintenance, plus it’s a fraction of the £893,758 that Lambeth has earmarked for LTNs overall.

LTNs: A rush job?

Authorities at all levels were under pressure to respond to coronavirus, but problems related to LTNs may be linked to central Government conditions. Department for Transport (DfT) guidance issued to local authorities said projects paid for by the Active Travel Fund had to reallocate road space to pedestrians and cyclists in a “swift and meaningful” way.

The DfT also stipulated work on the schemes had to commence within four weeks of funds being received, and be completed within just eight weeks of starting, with the DfT saying it would “claw the funding back by adjusting downwards a future grant payment” if these conditions weren’t met.

Some of the amounts awarded for LTNs are huge. Birmingham City Council is spending an estimated £525,000 on a number of programmes, mainly comprising road closures, and two schemes in Sheffield are projected to cost £672,000.

Manchester City Council, meanwhile, expects to spend £2.5million on road closures (among other changes) for a ‘Filtered Neighbourhood’ scheme. This is being paid for out of the ‘Mayor of Greater Manchester’s Challenge Fund’ rather than the active travel fund, however, meaning it is not subject to the same tight timescales as many LTNs, and Manchester City Council highlights the six-month trial scheme was subject to “extensive public consultation.”

Could LTNs work better?

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are intended to reduce pressure on public transport, bring pollution down by discouraging car use, improve physical health by getting people walking and cycling, and lead to quieter, more pleasant communities. A 2014 scheme in Waltham Forest, east London, for example, was initially met with resistance from the community, but has since been hailed a success.

The scheme created a ‘20-minute neighbourhood’, a community-minded environment that allows people to meet most of their daily needs within walking distance.  A recent survey from consultants Redfield & Wilton, meanwhile, found that 63 per cent of respondents living in an LTN said their lives had improved, while 47 per cent of those not living in an LTN thought a scheme would make their lives better.

What do the authorities say?

The DfT said that “well-designed cycling and walking schemes can bring environmental and health benefits for everyone”, but warned: “It is essential that proper consultation is undertaken with local stakeholders before they are introduced.” The DfT added: “Many schemes were introduced on a trial basis and are expected to be further developed and optimised in response to feedback”.

TfL told us walking and cycling rose by 29 per cent between April and June 2020, and it “worked closely with boroughs to deliver much-needed extra space for walking and cycling, including through temporary cycle lanes, wider pavements and low traffic neighbourhoods.” TfL said “the vast majority” of London’s hundreds of schemes are “working as intended” and that when LTNs need altering, it is “working hard to make the changes work for everyone and we’re supporting them in making adjustments where feedback shows they could improve”.

David Renard from the Local Government Association said that councils are working hard to “tackle congestion, make our air cleaner and improve the quality of life in their communities”. He added that “councils are democratic organisations and continually review all kinds of services and schemes. Being responsive to the needs of our communities is one of councils’ great strengths”.

Case study: what’s it like living in a Low Traffic Neighbourhood?

Eliska Finlay lives in Crystal Palace, south London, where an LTN by Croydon Council diverted traffic away from residential streets and onto larger boundary roads.

“I first discovered this was happening when I saw planters being put down on roads I normally use”, Eliska said. “There was no involvement, no letters sent to affected residents to let them know this was going to happen.” Eliska’s LTN includes a bus gate; cars aren’t allowed through it, but motorists who fail to spot the blue sign advising them that a road they had been previously allowed to use is closed get a £130 fine. Croydon Council predicts these penalties will help it take £4m a year from LTNs, according to an internal report seen by The Daily Telegraph.

“I’m inside the LTN, so I’m benefitting from it, but I feel cut off from parts of my own neighbourhood. People on the other side of the bus gate, my friends, now can’t come down to me if they’re on their way to other places. It has created a mental and physical division.

Every time I drive anywhere I worry I’m going to be stuck in traffic, because on the boundary roads around our LTN the traffic has been horrendous. We’ve got two schools in our LTN, and this has had an incredible impact on teachers.”

Eliska says LTNs have been “extraordinarily divisive” within the community. “The way this has been implemented has pitted neighbour against neighbour. We have to argue with each other about the merits of these policies.”

One issue campaigners have with LTNs is that they create quasi-gated communities and cul de sacs on leafy residential roads, loading larger highways with yet more traffic, increasing both congestion and pollution for people living on main roads that take traffic from closed roads. “It’s completely environmentally unjust”, Eliska says, “because people on the boundary roads will just have to grin and bear it for the greater pleasure, enjoyment and health of the people on the inside.”

A spokesperson from Croydon Council said it had seen “more local families out walking and cycling, which is fantastic” since the LTN was introduced, but the council admitted “some residents have told us they want it removed. We’re hoping the new proposal will address their concerns by removing the planters in the road to give better access for emergency vehicles and local residents – subject to future consultation with residents.”

The council added that fines from LTNs go towards free travel for older and disabled residents, as all such penalties must be put back into local transport provision.  By Graham Hill with huge thanks to Auto Express

In the UK we are constantly talking about EV’s and how we will only be able to buy an electric vehicle from 2030 and therefore, along with the rest of the developed countries, save the planet! But what about India and Africa and even America where some people travel hundreds of miles to buy a loaf of bread? Will charge points be available in the middle of a desert or jungle?

Porsche believe that this will be a problem and are developing a solution that keeps the internal combustion engine (ICE). Here’s a report on what they are doing.

Research into replacing fossil fuels with synthetic efuels could mean there’s life in the combustion engine yet.

Batteries are the main power source that vehicle manufacturers and governments around the world consider feasible for new cars in the future, but Porsche is to build a factory producing eFuels, hinting that carbon-neutral synthetic petrol and diesel have a role to play, too.

Synthetic fuels, or eFuels, are compatible with conventional internal combustion engines, and can be produced via carbon-neutral processes that potentially offset the carbon dioxide (CO2) generated when the fuels are burnt.

Porsche is teaming up with German industrial giant Siemens, energy firms Enel and AME, and petroleum company ENAP to build a pilot factory in Magallanes, southern Chile.

The plant will initially produce just 130,000 litres of eFuel by 2022, with a target of 55 million litres a year by 2024, and 550 million litres by 2026. Those amounts are minuscule, given that figures from the Petrol Retailers’ Association show that the UK alone uses 46.5 billion litres of petrol and diesel every year.

But Porsche’s project indicates that reports of the death of internal combustion-engined cars may be exaggerated. Synthetic fuels are often talked about as an alternative for aircraft, ships, heavy goods and construction vehicles, where batteries, which lack the energy density of conventional fuel, are not currently viable. Porsche’s Chilean eFuels will be used in motorsports, at Porsche Experience Centres and in production cars.

The Haru Oni plant in Chile will take advantage of the region’s strong winds to generate clean electricity from turbines built by Siemens. Fuel will be made at the plant by using wind power to dissociate hydrogen and oxygen molecules from water, with CO2 filtered from the air being combined with the hydrogen to make synthetic fuel.

The factory is being funded with an initial 20 million Euros (£18m) from Porsche, plus eight million Euros (£7.2m) from the German government. Porsche’s chief executive, Oliver Blume, said eFuels are a “worthwhile complement” to electric cars, and “an additional element on the road to decarbonisation”.

“As a maker of efficient, high-performance engines, we have broad technical expertise,” Blume added. “We know what fuel characteristics our engines need in order to operate with minimal impact on the climate.”

Christian Bruch, CEO of Siemens Energy, called the German government’s support for the project “an important signal”.

What are efuels?

Petrol and diesel are hydrocarbons – they are composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms. But while conventional fuels are derived from oil, eFuels get their hydrogen from water and carbon from the air, with these elements then combined to mimic the structure of petrol, diesel and other oil-derived fuels.

The energy used to create synthetic fuels can be renewable, and while burning them generates carbon dioxide (CO2), capturing carbon from the atmosphere during synthesis can offset this. eFuels can also be a good way of storing energy generated by renewable sources during times of low demand.

Synthesising eFuels is expensive, though. A single litre of diesel eFuel costs £4 before taxes, according to the Royal Society scientific institute. While such fuels have been around for a century or so, producing them on a meaningful scale globally is also a challenge.

Costs could be reduced with further development and economies of scale, but critics highlight that in addition to the significant expense they bring, the cleanliness and carbon neutrality of eFuels relies on several assumptions being made about their production, as well as how and where they are burnt.  By Graham Hill Thanks To Auto Express.

According to EV information website Zap-Map, there are 21,068 public chargers in the UK, of which 3908 are rapid chargers and 11 are ultra-rapid. If you don’t mind using one of the slower options, you should still be able to charge for free or a minimal fee.

Pod Point and Source London are among the larger companies that offer free charging (in some cases after a small initial fee) at certain locations.

It’s also worth investigating which smaller public charging companies are operating in your area. The Energise network only has a small number of charging points in southeast England, but once you’ve paid a £1 connection fee, its units are free to use.

Kent County Council also has a small number of chargers available on the same basis. There are similar options in many parts of the UK.

Another low-cost option is the ZeroNet network, which is run by the Zero Carbon World charity. Chargers are mostly in the car parks of hotels, restaurants and other hospitality industry locations, and many businesses offer free charging for customers, although parking charges might be payable while the charger is in use.

Potentially the cheapest way to charge away from home is to use the Zap-Home and Zap-Work network of chargers; the former are at EV owners’ homes and the latter on the premises of small businesses. Coverage is good all over the UK and the chargers can be used by anyone who’s registered with Zap-Map. Many are free, and those that aren’t free cost £3 to £5 per charge.

New code of practice for home charger installers

The Electric Vehicle Consumer Code for Home Chargepoints (EVCC) is a code of practice that’s been introduced for companies installing EV chargers to consumers. It has been designed to ensure that manufacturers, suppliers and installers of home chargers meet specific high standards so that consumers can have the confidence to use them for installation.

Companies signing up to the EVCC commit to no-pressure selling techniques and a high level of customer service and aftersales care. If a customer has a problem with an EVCC-registered company, they can go through a formal complaint process and use a free mediation service provided by Renewable Energy Assurance Ltd, which is a non-profit organisation with experience in operating codes of conduct for renewable energy companies.

Car insurance for electric cars

LV is the first mainstream car insurer to offer a policy specifically for owners of electric vehicles.

The policy includes a roadside recharging service in case your car runs out of juice anywhere in the UK (courtesy of a tie-up with specialist assistance provider AFF) or free recovery to the nearest charging point. Using these services won’t affect your no-claims discount.

The policy also provides accidental damage, fire and theft cover for your car’s battery pack, plus your charging cables, wallbox and adapters. By Graham Hill thanks to What Car

It wasn’t that long ago when I warned diesel car drivers about the threat of particulate filters being stolen because of the precious metal content. Clearly with no exhaust fitted to an electric car we thought that this problem would disappear but it seems that the metal thieves have found an alternative.

The alternative is the copper inside the charging cables. Up until recently the cables were pretty thin as they were used to charge slowly. But with the ultra-fast chargers requiring heavy duty cables the copper content has massively increased. And with few cars having a locking device and being left unattended whilst charging the cables have been easy picking for the scrap metal thieves.

Even though some manufacturers now have locking devices fitted, some as simple as a padlock it would be no problem to cut the cables at each end using insulated heavy duty cutters or banging a nail into the cable to short it and blow the fuse then cut with ordinary cutters.

Of course this will all change when under road chargers appear requiring the driver to simply park over the charge pad – like a wireless charger to charge a mobile phone. But whilst tests have been very successful these chargers are some way away. In the meantime here is one driver’s experience:

 Last night I had my type 2 cable stolen from a public charge point in Manchester centre (UK) I was also issued with a £70 fine for using a electric parking space without charging.

Here’s the weird bit:

I was charging until 21:07.17 at which point I was notified my charging was interrupted. I have the charge logs from the supplier (ChargeYourCar) to authenticate this time.

The ticket for parking without charging was issued at 21:09. This means that the parking attendant wrote down my details (reg, model, colour) within 100 seconds of my cable being stolen/charging stopping.

I’ve reported the theft to the police but they say they’re unable to do anything. I’m going to go down later and see if anywhere has captured those 100 seconds on CCTV.

How is this possible? I was a 20 minutes walk away from the car at the time of the theft. I thought that once a charge was started both ends of the cable were locked. The charge started at 17:41 and continued with no problems until the cable was stolen at 21:07.

Could someone use a clone of a supercharger button (I know they unlock / open charge ports on every Tesla) to unlock and steal the cable? The cable was about £250 I think.

The time between the cable theft and me receiving a ticket sees suspiciously short (100 seconds) could the parking attendant be responsible? Did they tip off a friend to come and steal it?

The police mentioned it had happened a few times recently. The firm issuing the ticket was Indigo Parking on behalf of Salford City Council. By Graham Hill thanks to Reddit

TfL issued £130 million of fines over 12 months to drivers not paying the Congestion Charge, over twice the revenue raised from drivers paying the daily fee!

Motorists have been fined £130 million over a 12-month period for driving into the London Congestion Charge zone without paying, it has been revealed.

The fine for failing to pay the Congestion Charge is £160 – reduced to £80 if paid within 14 days – and Transport for London (TfL) issued over 817,000 such penalty charge notices (PCNs) in the 12 months up to September 2020.

Of these PCNs, more than 60 per cent were issued after June 2020, when the daily Congestion Charge fee was increased from £11.50 to £15, with hours of operation increasing from 7am to 10pm, and the toll moving from five, to seven days a week.

Data obtained from TfL by Citroen via a freedom of information request also shows the organisation received £52 million in revenue from Congestion Charge payments over the same period, meaning fines resulted in significantly more income.

Drivers who enter the Congestion Charge zone, which covers a small area of central London, have three days to pay. Electric vehicles are currently exempt from the charge, as are plug-in hybrids that emit under 75g/km of CO2 and have an electric-only range of at least 20 miles.

Eurig Druce, Citroen UK’s managing director, suggested electric cars were one way drivers could avoid paying the Congestion Charge, saying EVs “help drivers save significantly on running costs” and also “eliminate the chance of unexpected and expensive fines for forgetting the Congestion Charge zone payment and other low emission zone tariffs.”

The £12.50 per-day ULEZ (ultra-low emission zone) applies to drivers of pre-Euro 4 petrol or pre-Euro 6, and covers the same area of central London as the Congestion Charge zone, with affected motorists having to pay both fees.

The ULEZ will extend to cover regions of London within the North and South Circular roads, although there are currently no plans to extend the Congestion Charge Zone.  By Graham Hill thanks to Auto Express

It is always risky predicting The Next Big Thing, but Abarth might just have it. It’s not the 595 Scorpioneoro you see here which, while unquestionably a stylish special edition, is based on a car that’s been on sale for well over a decade. No, the really exciting thing is how potential owners can try the car out.

Because Abarth has just started a trial that will see prospective 595 buyers sent a wooden crate, inside which rest Bose headphones and a virtual reality (VR) headset. Pre-loaded on this headset is a three-minute film, which takes viewers on a ‘virtual test drive’ through stunning Welsh vistas in a 595 Scorpioneoro.

I’ve tried VR in the past, and let’s just say that when used for corporate videos, the experience is underwhelming. But what Abarth has done with its virtual test drive – the world’s first, no less – is nothing short of spectacular.

Beginning on Black Rock Sands beach in North Wales, we’re introduced to both the car and our co-driver, Stef Vilaverde, a died-in-the-wool Abarth fan and YouTuber. The beginning is short, but gives time to appreciate the surroundings. In front of you stands the car, but tilt your head up (in the real world) and you can see the sky and clouds.

Turn around and you’re faced with headland cliffs, the camera angle and audio moving with your eyes and ears; it really looks and sounds like you’re stood on the Welsh coast. No time to dwell on the scenery, though, as the roar of the 595’s exhaust draws you back to the car in time to see it blast across the sands.

We’re in the passenger seat for most of the rest of the test drive, and as far as your eyes and ears are concerned, you’re in the car. Turn your head to the left and watch the crystal-clear lake waters of Llyn Ogwen pass by; face ahead and Snowdon looms into view ahead of the 595’s bonnet; look inside the cabin and you can make out details like the Scorpioneoro’s limited-edition plaque.

It’s an immersive experience, and when Stef activates the sports exhaust and gives the 595’s 163bhp 1.4-litre engine a blast, the audio is as engaging as the visuals. Another camera angle sees looking from outside the car at road level; facing forwards reveals rushing tarmac, turning behind shows the bonnet of the 595 bobbing away, inches from your eyes.

There are a couple of limitations. Even though the gear has to be returned to Abarth, the cost of VR headsets means it’s doubtful every manufacturer could offer every customer a VR drive (Abarth’s trial is operating only from Vospers dealership in Exeter – for now).

And while the wooden crate the gear arrived in is a cool nod to past Abarths (which had performance upgrades in a similar box) the crate itself is too large and heavy to be handled easily by all.

But with real-world test drives likely to be problematic for some time, VR could be an important tool for car makers, dealerships and, of course, buyers – not least because as well as leaving me yearning to drive a 595 Scorpioneoro, the virtual world brought excitement and variety after months being cooped up.

How does virtual reality work?

VR films are created using a camera with multiple lenses that film 360-degree footage with no blind spots; a 360-degree microphone with several channels is also used. Software stitches the recordings into a seamless ‘bubble’ of footage; camera mounts that might be in shot are also removed.

A VR headset displays the all-encompassing footage on two small screens directly in front of your eyes, motion sensors determining where you are looking; tilt your head up, for example, and the footage follows, mimicking what your eyes would see if they were the camera.  By Graham Hill thanks to Auto Express

It should come as no surprise to anyone in the industry that another car manufacturer has been accused of using emissions defeat devices to fool the emissions tests. I was one of the first to say that when VW were found to be using such devices that the problem goes industrywide. It was common knowledge that this was going on, it was just a matter of time before they were found out.

It all started years ago when manufacturers would tape up car doors and remove trim and even door mirrors to reduce drag when checking fuel consumption. They did similar things when emission rules were introduced but when inspectors finally started to check the tests they had to come up with something more creative.

On to the report:

Vauxhall is the latest manufacturer to face claims that some of its diesel engines were fitted with emissions ‘cheating’ devices or software.

It follows similar accusations against Mercedes-Benz, Fiat-Chrysler and the Renault-Nissan alliance, in the wake of the Volkswagen ‘dieselgate’ scandal.

Law firm Milberg London says it is launching a case against Vauxhall for drivers who bought or leased certain models manufactured between 2009 and 2019.

A statement issued by the car maker said: “Vauxhall Motors is not aware of any such claim and rejects any accusation of using illegal defeat devices. Our vehicles meet the applicable regulations.”

More than a million people could receive compensation if the claim is successful.

Edward Cardington, partner at Milberg London LLP and lead lawyer for the Vauxhall Pay Up Campaign, said: “The Vauxhall Pay Up campaign has set out to prove that Vauxhall cheated both the emissions tests and hardworking British drivers.

“Motorists were promised a combination of low environmental impact and high driving performance that appears to have been impossible in real driving conditions. Put simply, clean diesel looks like a myth and Vauxhall’s cars did not provide the performance drivers paid for.”

The Vauxhall Pay Up campaign will claim under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations. These laws state that customers who were sold products with misleading information could receive anything between 25% and 75% of the cost of the product they purchased in compensation.

Potentially affected models highlighted by Milberg London include diesel versions of the following Vauxhall models: Astra, Cascada, Corsa, Insignia, Mokka, Movano and Zafira. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

RAC patrols attended almost 1,500 call-outs in the last three months of 2020 for pothole related breakdowns, despite reduced traffic volumes as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Analysis of fourth quarter RAC breakdowns for National Pothole Day reveals there were 1,461 call-outs for damaged shock absorbers, broken suspension springs and distorted wheels reveals, representing nearly 1% (0.9%) of all RAC attendances.

While the pothole proportion of all RAC breakdowns is down on the previous quarter, it is identical to the same period in 2019 and slightly higher than 2018 (0.8%). The RAC says this is concerning given the lower traffic volumes brought about by coronavirus travel restrictions as in theory, less traffic should mean less damage to road surfaces.

Looking across the UK, the South East saw the largest number of vehicle problems most likely to be caused by potholes at 242 – equating to 17% of all the pothole-related call-outs dealt with by the RAC’s expert local patrols.

While this could be attributed to the region being more densely populated, this is unlikely to be the case for the South West which saw 12% of all the RAC’s pothole breakdowns (173), almost the same number as the North West (170).

The RAC’s Pothole Index, which is a long-term indicator of the health of the UK’s roads available, suggests the overall standard of road surfaces has been improving since the start of 2019. Having begun at 1.0 in 2006, the index currently stands at 1.44 which means drivers are nearly one and a half times as likely to experience damage caused by a pothole as they were 15 years ago.

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said: “While the actual number of pothole-related call-outs our patrols have attended is down significantly compared to the same time in 2019 due to lower traffic volumes in the pandemic, they account for the same proportion (0.9%) of all RAC rescues which clearly demonstrates there are still far too many poorly maintained roads.

“We realise council budgets are under incredible pressure due to the coronavirus, but we badly need the Government to recognise the significance of local roads and take a fresh look at how to fund them.

“The Government’s approach of allocating funding to councils from various pots on an annual basis means authorities are always having to play catch-up by fixing potholes rather than focusing on preventative maintenance. We would prefer to see them make five-year funding settlements which would allow councils to make longer-term plans for their roads.

This could be funded by introducing a similar scheme to the National Roads Fund which ringfences money paid in vehicle excise duty by road users in England for the upkeep of major roads.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Car use has fallen by more than a fifth in the UK during the latest lockdown – nowhere near the decline seen in March – new data from the RAC shows.

During the first week of the latest lockdown, data from RAC Black Box Insurance customers shows a 22% year-on-year reduction in car use, which puts traffic volumes are at a similar level to the middle of last May.

It was May when restrictions first started to be eased, with people encouraged to return to workplaces if they were unable to work from home.

The quietest week for traffic since the start of the coronavirus pandemic was the second week of the first coronavirus lockdown (w/c March 30), when RAC data showed a 41% reduction in car usage compared to normal.

This contrasts with the first full week of September (w/c September 7) when the RAC recorded its highest levels of car use of the year as schools in England returned after the summer holidays, with traffic back to normal levels.

Rod Dennis from the RAC said: “The feel of this latest nationwide lockdown is very different to that which was first imposed in 2020, with greater numbers of people working in Covid-secure workplaces, more shops offering click-and-collect services, and more children of keyworkers attending schools.

“In addition, with so many avoiding public transport, there will inevitably be far more people opting for the safer environment of the car. Together, these differences help account for the busier roads.”

A further sign that vehicles are being used more during this latest lockdown is the extremely high number of breakdowns attended by RAC patrols so far this year.

Incredibly, the RAC had its busiest start to a New Year on record with 8% more breakdowns handled over the first four days of January compared to the same period in previous years.

While the cold weather and the fact cars were used even less than normal over Christmas as a result of the coronavirus will both have been major factors, the data confirms that drivers are still deeming it necessary to use their vehicles for essential trips in 2021.

Dennis said: “It’s vital drivers think carefully before using their vehicles and ensure they’re only venturing out for essential trips as specified by government guidelines.

“Every unnecessary journey increases the chances of a breakdown, or worse a road traffic collision, and risks adding to the pressures being experienced by our emergency and healthcare workers.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Here Technologies has unveiled a new electric vehicle (EV) routing feature aimed at delivering drivers the most optimal route, including charging time.

The new EV Routing feature takes into account topography, road geometry, real-time traffic information and traffic patterns, while planning trips.

Here Technologies says It can be synced to the consumption model of the vehicle and can be adjusted to different driving styles, loads or weather conditions.

Jussi Koski, VP product management at Here Technologies, said: “EV Routing does more than show you the way to a charging station.

“It provides the most optimal route, including charging times, while taking into account static and dynamic data such as charging speed or real-time traffic conditions.

“Not only is EV Routing based on a wide range of parameters, it can also be customised. With EV Routing, Here goes beyond removing range anxiety and makes EV driving a truly personalised experience.”

EV Routing leverages Here EV Charge Points, a database that includes vehicle brand, real-time availability of charging stations, subscription and pricing information. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News