The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Batteries capable of fully charging in five minutes have been produced in a factory for the first time, marking a significant step towards electric cars becoming as fast to charge as filling up petrol or diesel vehicles.

Electric vehicles are a vital part of action to tackle the climate crisis but running out of charge during a journey is a worry for drivers. The new lithium-ion batteries were developed by the Israeli company StoreDot and manufactured by Eve Energy in China on standard production lines.

StoreDot has already demonstrated its “extreme fast-charging” battery in phones, drones and scooters and the 1,000 batteries it has now produced are to showcase its technology to carmakers and other companies. Daimler, BP, Samsung and TDK have all invested in StoreDot, which has raised $130m to date and was named a Bloomberg New Energy Finance Pioneer in 2020.

The batteries can be fully charged in five minutes but this would require much higher-powered chargers than used today. Using available charging infrastructure, StoreDot is aiming to deliver 100 miles of charge to a car battery in five minutes in 2025.

“The number one barrier to the adoption of electric vehicles is no longer cost, it is range anxiety,” said Doron Myersdorf, CEO of StoreDot. “You’re either afraid that you’re going to get stuck on the highway or you’re going to need to sit in a charging station for two hours.

But if the experience of the driver is exactly like fuelling [a petrol car], this whole anxiety goes away.”

“A five-minute charging lithium-ion battery was considered to be impossible,” he said. “But we are not releasing a lab prototype, we are releasing engineering samples from a mass production line. This demonstrates it is feasible and it’s commercially ready.”

Existing Li-ion batteries use graphite as one electrode, into which the lithium ions are pushed to store charge. But when these are rapidly charged, the ions get congested and can turn into metal and short circuit the battery.

The StoreDot battery replaces graphite with semiconductor nanoparticles into which ions can pass more quickly and easily. These nanoparticles are currently based on germanium, which is water soluble and easier to handle in manufacturing.

But StoreDot’s plan is to use silicon, which is much cheaper, and it expects these prototypes later this year. Myersdorf said the cost would be the same as existing Li-ion batteries.

“The bottleneck to extra-fast charging is no longer the battery,” he said. Now the charging stations and grids that supply them need to be upgraded, he said, which is why they are working with BP. “BP has 18,200 forecourts and they understand that, 10 years from now, all these stations will be obsolete, if they don’t repurpose them for charging – batteries are the new oil.”

Dozens of companies around the world are developing fast-charging batteries, with Tesla, Enevate and Sila Nanotechnologies all working on silicon electrodes. Others are looking at different compounds, such as Echion which uses niobium oxide microparticles.

Tesla boss Elon Musk tweeted on Monday: “Battery cell production is the fundamental rate-limiter slowing down a sustainable energy future. Very important problem.”

“I think such fast-charging batteries will be available to the mass market in three years,” said Prof Chao-Yang Wang, at the Battery and Energy Storage Technology Center at Pennsylvania State University in the US. “They will not be more expensive; in fact, they allow automakers to downsize the onboard battery while still eliminating range anxiety, thereby dramatically cutting down the vehicle battery cost.”

Research by Wang’s group is being developed by the company EC Power, which he founded. It carefully increases the temperature of the battery to 60C, which enables the lithium ions to move faster, but avoids the damage to the battery usually caused by heat. He said this allowed a full charge in 10 minutes.

Wang said new research published in Nature Energy on Monday showed this battery could be both affordable and eliminate range anxiety. “Finally we are achieving parity with gasoline vehicles in both cost and convenience.

We have the technology for $25,000 electric cars that race like luxury sport cars, have 10-minute rechargeability and are safer than any currently on the market.”

Wang noted that fast charging must also be repeatable at least 500 times without degrading the battery to give it a reasonable life and that the EC power battery can do so 2,500 times.

Myersdorf said the StoreDot battery could be recharged 1,000 cycles while retaining 80% of original capacity.

Anna Tomaszewska, at Imperial College London, UK, who reviewed the fast-charging batteries in 2019, was more cautious about the speed of their rollout. “I think technologies [like StoreDot’s] could start entering the market in the next five years or so.

However, since they will be more difficult and expensive to manufacture, we’re likely to initially only see them in niche markets that are highly performance-driven and not as price-sensitive as electric vehicles,” she said.  By Graham Hill thanks to The Guardian

Recommendations for who will be legally liable if an autonomous vehicle is involved in a collision or commits an offence are set to be published by the Law Commission before the end of the year.

The organisation has completed a consultation into the legal ramifications of the technology and is now assessing responses before making its final recommendations.

Jessica Uguccioni, lead lawyer of the Law Commission’s autonomous vehicles review, says: “One of the big things we’ve determined is that you can’t just keep the current system for enforcing road traffic rules when it comes to automated vehicles.

“At the moment you can basically lock people up if they do something really, really bad on the road, like dangerous driving, but that is just not going to work with the automated driving regime.

“We need to have a system which is much more based on ensuring safety to begin with, but then understanding why things have gone wrong and preventing them happening again because a single incident can have ramifications for many other vehicles.”

In the Law Commission’s consultation document, the organisation says different levels of automation should affect where liability lies.

If the vehicle is fully autonomous and can travel without a driver in them then any people in the vehicle are merely passengers so have no legal responsibility for the way the vehicle drives and are under no obligation to take over the driving.

Determining liability for autonomous vehicles which require a human driver to be in control of the vehicle at times is more complicated.

While there will be periods when the vehicle is fully autonomous or when it is being fully controlled by a human, there will also be times when the vehicle is transferring control to the driver.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

More cars were stolen and recovered in London than in any other region across 2020, latest data analysis from Tracker, has revealed.

The West Midlands and Greater Manchester have moved up the league table to second and third position respectively, ousting Essex from second to fourth position.

The analysis also reports another annual increase in keyless car thefts, now standing at an all-time high of 93%.

Other car crime hot spots within Tracker’s regional analysis include Kent, Surrey, and Hertfordshire, as well as Lancashire, South Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire. Hertfordshire and Lancashire join the top ten for the first time, while Herefordshire and Merseyside have dropped out.

RAC Insurance reported vehicle thefts rose to highest level in four years, as more than 150,000 cars, vans and motorcycles were reported as stolen in 2018-19.

Range Rover and Land Rover topped the league table for the most stolen and recovered vehicles across the UK, with the three top spots occupied by Range Rover models – the Sport followed by the Vogue and the Autobiography.

A £120,000 Range Rover Autobiography was stolen from a supermarket carpark in Walthamstow, London, in just 80 seconds by thieves taking advantage of weaknesses in the keyless entry system.

The Land Rover Discovery, Range Rover Evoque and Land Rover Defender also make the top ten. These six models alone account for 37% of all stolen cars recovered by Tracker in 2020.

Clive Wain, head of Police Liaison for Tracker, said: “It is no surprise that London was the busiest region for vehicle thefts and recoveries in 2020 – it always is. The area accounts for as many recoveries as the next seven regions in our top ten, combined. Nor is it a surprise to see Range Rover and Land Rover dominating our UK hot spots.

“However, yet another annual increase in the number of cars being stolen by thieves exploiting keyless car technology should ring alarm bells for everyone, regardless of the make and model they drive.

“Thieves use sophisticated equipment to exploit keyless technology by hijacking the car key’s signal, typically from the security of the owner’s home, and remotely fooling the system into unlocking the doors and starting the engine.

“This is commonly known as a “relay attack” and accounted for 93% of all our recorded thefts in 2020. This nudged up from 92% in 2019 but represents a shocking 27% increase in the last 5 years.”

Ford bolsters vehicle security

To help prevent vehicle theft, Ford has increased the number of models with security technology which disables keyless entry fobs when not in use to block illegal hacking.

The average fleet loses around £16,000 per year as a result of vehicle or equipment theft, according to Verizon Connect.

A motion sensor inside Ford’s fobs detects when it has been stationary for longer than 40 seconds and triggers a sleep mode, which will not respond to attempts to hack its signal via a “relay box” or through the misuse of other specialist equipment.

Moving the keyless fob by picking it up inside the home and taking it to the car will restore full functionality by the time drivers approach their cars. Ford fobs are designed to operate only within a two-metre radius of the cars they are bonded to.

The feature has been added as standard to the Ford Puma as well as the Ford Kuga. The Ford Mustang-E electric vehicle (EV) will also feature the technology.

Ford said all production of the Ford Puma, which went on sale at the start of 2020, includes the motion-sensor key fobs. Ford Kuga production added the deterrent in July 2020.

The fob was introduced to Ford’s Fiesta and Focus in 2019. Figures from security analysts Retainagroup show that the number of thefts of the latest Fiesta have fallen by two-thirds compared with the number of previous Fiestas stolen.

Latest Fiesta 2018-2020	Previous Fiesta 2009-2017
Total sold	223,600	1,026,000
Number of thefts (2020)	231	3,152
Thefts per 1,000	1.03	3.06

Simon Hurr, Ford security specialist, said: “The online availability of devices, which have no place in public hands, has long been a problem for Ford, our industry and crime fighters.  We are pleased to extend our simple but effective solution, to help protect more owners of our most popular cars.”

Although lockdown measures in Spring of 2020 saw an overall reduction in general crime figures, Tracker said it saw vehicle theft increase once restrictions were lifted.

Wain said: “Our July stolen recovery figures were up 50% compared to April and May, so car owners need to be extra vigilant as we move out of lockdown in the coming months.

“We always encourage drivers to use traditional visual deterrents such as crook locks and wheel clamps to frighten off criminals and protect their car.

“However, in the event of a theft, stolen vehicle tracking technology will significantly help police quickly close the net on thieves and return the vehicle to its rightful owner.”

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The fuel consumption of plug-in hybrid (PHEV) models was found to be 61% lower, on average, than official figures suggest, in a new independent test.

Which? put 22 PHEV models through a laboratory test, which it claims is “more stringent” than the official WLTP cycle that manufacturers must use.

The cars were tested on the road, including on the motorway, with their batteries in varying states of charge. Which? claims each model was driven 62 miles.

“A fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid vehicle is an attractive feature for prospective buyers, as many will expect to spend less on fuel and reduce their carbon footprint. Yet our research shows many popular hybrid models are not as efficient as the manufacturer’s claim, which means motorists could be spending more on fuel than they anticipated,” said Natalie Hitchins, head of home products and services at Which?.

“It is clear that the standard set for calculating fuel efficiency rates is flawed and should be reviewed to reflect real-life driving conditions. This would ensure manufacturers advertise more accurate rates and consumers have an accurate understanding of how much they should expect to spend on fuel,” she added.

More than 66,000 PHEVs were sold in 2020, an increase of 91% on the previous year. Company car drivers can benefit from the lower CO2 emission figures when compared to equivalent petrol or diesel models, making them a deisreable choice.

A previous study by Fleet Logistics found that the average PHEV returned 37.2mpg and 193g/km of CO2, as a result of many business drivers not charging them regularly.

The best performing vehicle in the Which? test was the Toyota Prius, which achieved 114mpg versus the official 188.3mpg claimed figure. A difference of 39%.

BMW’s X5 plug-in hybrid was the furthest from its official figure of 188.3mpg, returning 52.8mpg in the Which? test.

By law, manufacturers are required to test all vehicles to the same WLTP standard, which is independently verified by government authorities. It is these results that manufacturers must publish within any advertising communications.

Mike Hawes, SMMT chief executive, said: “There will, however, always be a difference between lab tests and real-world use. Fuel use will vary greatly depending on the type of journey made, the conditions, driving stye, load and other factors which is why the WLTP test is a standardised test designed to overcome these variables and provide consumers with accurate and comparable results across all vehicles.

“The WLTP tests consistently demonstrate that plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) offer comparable range to pure petrol or diesel equivalents but deliver substantial emission reductions, with zero emission range typically 25-40 miles, which is more than ample given that 94% of UK car journeys are less than 25 miles. PHEV range and performance will continue to improve meaning that, for many drivers, they are the essential stepping-stone to a fully electric vehicle.”

Which? PHEV fuel economy test results:

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Before I get into the article I should point out that in my opinion the class actions, widely advertised, are unlikely to succeed as the lawyers will need to prove that customers had lost money as a result of the actions of the manufacturers. This will be very difficult to prove.

Some claims companies are trying to sign everyone up that owned or leased any diesel between dates when some have been shown to be fiddling the emissions. That way if there is a future action you cannot claim yourself, you are now under contract to the claims company. My advice at the moment is do nothing and certainly don’t sign up to any of the many claims companies. On to the article:

Emissions cheating allegations are now being levelled against all car manufacturers who sold diesel vehicles in the UK between 2009 and 2018, by London law firm Harcus Parker.

Businesses, company car drivers and the rental and leasing industry could be eligible for compensation if the claims are successful.

Following the dieselgate scandal, Volkswagen Group was the first brand to face civil action with some 90,000 UK owners seeking compensation. The carmaker, however, is defending the claim and says that claimants did not suffer any loss. The case is ongoing.

Class action lawsuits have since been launched against Daimler, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Renault, Nissan and Vauxhall by numerous firms in the UK and Harcus Parker plans to begin legal proceedings against all other manufacturers of diesel vehicles in the coming weeks. The cases are expected to last for around two years.

All the car brands involved in existing claims deny the allegations.

Damon Parker, partner at Harcus Parker, said: “My clients bought diesel vehicles after believing the messages pushed on them from all sides that ‘clean diesels’ offered a win-win solution to the problem of increasing CO2 emissions.

“Unfortunately, this ignores the difficulties manufacturers have always faced in controlling emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx). The effects of diesel fumes on air quality is now becoming more well known, and my clients hope that by holding vehicle manufacturers to account for breaching regulatory limits, they can help to protect the environment, air quality and our health in the future.”

Car manufacturers are accused of using illegal defeat devices to manipulate the emissions performance of vehicles at certain times, such as during emissions tests, to make their cars appear to be more environmentally friendly.

All vehicles registered between 2009 and 2018 underwent the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test, in order to gain type approval. While EU law bans the use of ‘defeat devices’, exceptions within the regulations allow the effectiveness of emissions control systems to be reduced if it’s required to protect the engine against damage or ensure its safe operation.

Nick Molden, founder and CEO of independent vehicle emissions testing firm Emissions Analytics, told Fleet News: “The regulations set a NOx limit in ‘normal driving’ but, in Europe, there was no description of what normal driving was – only the official NEDC cycle, which varied totally from normal driving.

“Manufacturers have worked through the regulations and found what specific tests they had to meet. No carmaker has failed to meet what they had to do under NEDC, but the lawyers argue that they should always meet that.”

A 2016 investigation by the Vehicle Certification Agency, on behalf of the Department for Transport, found that only Volkswagen Group vehicles featured defeat devices designed specifically to beat official testing.

However, the tests provided further evidence that NOx emissions from diesel vehicles were higher in real-world conditions and on the test track than in laboratory conditions.

The investigation concluded that the EU regulations provided uncertainty about how emissions control systems may be reduced or deactivated in certain conditions and did not detail how the exceptions to the ban on defeat devices should apply, whether or how manufacturers should apply these exemptions, or how a type approval authority should evaluate the validity of their use.

Parker said: “For a vehicle to perform significantly differently below 20oC, 17oC or even 15oC is simply unacceptable and in our view is a transparent attempt to manufacture vehicles which purport to pass the relevant tests but which perform very differently in the real world. After all, the average temperate in the UK is around 9oC.”

The excess diesel emissions issue is estimated to affect around 40 million cars in Europe and around 11 million in the UK, including non-RDE Euro 6 models.

The Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP) said it is not aware that any of its members are engaging with class action suits and believes fleet operators are unlikely to seek compensation unless residual values were affected.

Molden said the weakness in class action suits is in establishing that car owners have suffered a loss.

“The consequence of higher NOx is better fuel economy and lower CO2. Consumers have been benefiting – there is no financial loss there. Secondhand car values are also still very strong. People like the fuel efficiency of a diesel vehicle,” he explained. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Government is being urged to review the way that drug driving is tackled in a new report, published by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS).

The report, ‘Drink driving – the tip of an iceberg?’, shows that enforcement of the drug driving laws varies dramatically across the country.

Forces with better procedures, contract and training are convicting ten times more drug drivers than others, when controlling for population size.

Meanwhile, high costs and delays with blood testing mean that some police forces are rationing what should be a routine roadside test.

Reoffending is also a major concern with 44% of recorded offences being committed by reoffenders.

One person committed the offence ‘driving or attempting to drive with drug level above the specified limit’ when they had 18 previous drink and drug driving offences.

PACTS says that a new drug drive rehabilitation course and high risk offender scheme should be introduced, modelled broadly on the existing drink drive programmes, but with better screening for drug and mental health problems and with clear pathways to treatment.

David Davies, executive director of PACTS, said: “This report by PACTS shows we still lack answers to vital questions on drug driving.

“The number of offences and deaths detected so far may be only the tip of the iceberg.”

Davies says that the police have made “big strides” in catching drug drivers over the past five years, but it remains a “postcode lottery”.

“While some forces are testing hundreds of drivers, others are rationing patrols to a single test,” he continued. “These disparities cannot be explained by differences in drug driving and the danger it creates. A more consistent approach is badly needed, with all forces testing for drug driving where it is suspected.”

In total, 12,391 people were convicted of a drug driving offence in 2019, but PACTS says that these numbers are rising fast.

Drug drivers are much more likely to have a criminal history than the general public. An analysis in 2017 of those convicted of drug driving found 67% of those convicted of drug driving offences had one or more previous conviction. Typically, these offences were for theft/burglary or drug-related.

Drivers who combine alcohol and drugs are likely to be significantly more impaired than those who consume only one. However, those who combine drink and drugs do not receive a longer sentence.

PACTS is recommending introducing a new combined drink and drug driving, with a lower drink drive limit, that recognises the risk drivers who combine alcohol and drugs pose.

The PACTS report recommends that the Department for Transport (DfT), in collaboration with the Department for Health, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, should undertake a review of policy on drug driving

The Government, it says, should also introduce a new combined drink and drug driving offence, with a lower blood alcohol limit.

Meanwhile, levels of drug driving enforcement should be increased in the UK, particularly in those police force areas where levels are low, and the Home Office should review the blood testing process and seek ways to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of laboratory testing by increasing capacity, improved procurement, or other means.

It should also consider the possibility of reclaiming costs from those who are found guilty.

Furthermore, PACTS wants a new drug drive rehabilitation course, based on the current drink drive course, to be introduced in the UK, while the DfT should publish robust offence and casualty data on drug driving using coroner data and other sources, as they do for drink driving.

Davies said: “Driving under the influence of a combination of drink and drugs, even at relatively low levels, is particularly dangerous. This is not widely understood and there is no specific offence for drink and drug driving. This needs to change.

“There are significant problems with the speed and capacity of laboratories to process blood tests for drugs. This is hampering enforcement of driving offences and drivers are escaping prosecution. We need a Covid-style response to improving lab capacity.”

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Road pricing is back on the political agenda. Government sources suggest Chancellor Rishi Sunak is considering replacing fuel duty, as electric power gradually replaces petrol and diesel.

Meanwhile, the Transport Committee of the House of Commons has launched an inquiry into zero carbon vehicles and road pricing.

We have been here before. In 2007 some of my colleagues were working on a study for the Department for Transport (DfT) into the public acceptability of road pricing when an email went round the university urging people to sign an e-petition urging the Prime Minister to “scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy”.

It went on to attract 1.8 million signatures, prompting Blair to abandon the plans.

I interviewed Peter Roberts, the man who started that petition, for Roads, Runways and Resistance: From the Newbury Bypass to Extinction Rebellion*.

The book tells the inside story of the most controversial transport issues in Britain since the late 1980s, the ones which provoked widespread protest, through interviews with ministers, civil servants, advisers and protest leaders.

It outlines how, in 2000, a small group of farmers and hauliers closed down the UK economy faster than Covid-19 in protest at rising fuel taxes.

The Government made small concessions at the time, but the enduring legacy of those protests is illustrated in the fuel tax graph below; fuel tax has fallen by more than a third since then.

Those stories, and that graph, illustrate the biggest problem with plans for road pricing today. Over the next few years, decarbonisation is the main challenge for the transport sector.

The sixth carbon budget now before Parliament would require the whole sector to cut its emissions by 70% by the mid-2030s. There are only two ways to do that: take petrol and diesel vehicles off the road and/or reduce the distances they drive.

Fuel tax rises would be the most effective way to create a ‘push factor’, and yet, governments continue to cut them, with hardly a murmur of opposition.

Road pricing could create a push factor if it increases the cost of driving conventional vehicles. It would make driving more expensive on congested roads, but if it replaces fuel taxes, it could make it cheaper to drive on uncongested roads, which have more capacity. That would increase carbon emissions.

It all depends on how the prices are set. Would politicians really use this as a way of making motoring more expensive? If not, then road pricing might make sense after the fleet has electrified, but not before, as I have written in my evidence to the Transport Committee.

In the meantime, governments should reverse those fuel tax cuts aim to accelerate the shift away from petrol and diesel.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Company car drivers charging an electric vehicle (EV) at home could save up to £1,250 a year by choosing the right tariff, says Rightcharge.co.uk.

With energy prices rising in the UK as from 01 April 2021, many households will be paying larger electricity utility bills, including those drivers who charge their company vehicles at home.

However, the vehicle home charger and energy comparison site says that this is the perfect opportunity for fleet drivers to find more generously priced EV-friendly energy tariffs that cover charging for fully-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles – providing a combined home and vehicle charge saving on household energy costs.

For example, a fleet driver covering 20,000 miles annually would expect to pay £2,344 on a standard variable tariff from one of the big six energy suppliers, which would include both household energy use and £1,300 for the charging of the vehicle.

From April that total will increase to £2,599 a year, including £1,454 for charging the same car, representing an annual price increase faced by the driver of £154 for just the charging alone, potentially impacting any financial benefit-in-kind (BIK) taxation gains drivers may have gained from swapping from a conventional diesel car to an EV.

Yet users who switch to a lower-cost alternative EV energy tariff after April 1, could find themselves paying only £1,349 a year – with the charging element representing just £459 of that amount – says Rightcharge.

This represents a massive saving of £995 on charging a vehicle at home, with an additional £255 saved on household energy bills. That’s a total saving of £1,250 a year.

Charlie Cook, founder of Rightcharge, said: “EV-friendly energy tariffs are so incredibly cheap in comparison to a standard tariff, that a homeowner can actually start charging their car at home and reduce their total energy bill at the same time – effectively getting from A to B for free.

“A fleet driver doing 20,000 miles per year can save £1,250. That’s a huge saving EV fleet drivers could be making by simply switching.”

Rightcharge allows users to compare EV-friendly energy tariffs by taking their car into account as well as their home, helping customers to minimise costs for running EVs – plus special payment available for fleets. Rightcharge also helps users to select the correct charger for vehicle and home offering.

Cook said: “We want to help drivers minimise their EV costs – and we suspect many just don’t realise what they can save. Our price comparison website points them in the right direction.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Transport Committee has launched an inquiry into the benefits and safety of Smart Motorways in response to numerous calls for them to be scrapped.

It comes less than a year after the publication of an 18-point action plan to improve safety, in March 2020, following a previous review of Smart Motorways by the Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps.

Shapps told MPs earlier last month that he did not want to carry on with the system of Smart Motorways.

“What I commit to is making sure that the motorways we have in this country are safer than the motorways that came before them. That is the commitment I make. To be robust and clear from the evidence of, sadly, how many people die on our motorways, they are the safest form of road, but they should be safer,” he said.

Campaigners against Smart Motorways have labelled them as ‘death traps’. One coroner concluded that smart motorways ‘present an ongoing risk of future deaths’ while another has referred Highways England to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider if corporate manslaughter charges are appropriate following the 2018 death of a grandmother on the M1 in South Yorkshire.

Recent media coverage reported 14 fatalities on smart motorways in 2019 compared to 11 deaths in 2018 and five the year before.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said: “The Department for Transport says Smart Motorways help us cope with a 23% rise in traffic since 2000, helping congestion. The Department’s own Stocktake report points to lower fatal casualty rates for smart motorways without a permanent hard shoulder than on motorways with a hard shoulder. The serious casualty rate is slightly higher.

“This message isn’t reaching the public, whose confidence in smart motorways has been dented by increasing fatalities on these roads. Road safety charities are also expressing concerns. Will enhanced safety measures help? Will the public accept them following an awareness campaign? Or should there be a rethink of government policy?

“There are genuine worries about this element of the motorway network and we want to investigate how we got to this point.”

Smart motorways were introduced as a technology-driven approach to deal with congestion through increasing capacity on motorways and controlling the flow and speed of traffic. They can be divided into three different designs, of which the most common is All Lane Running (ALR) introduced in 2014. These are the type that cause the most concern for campaigners as broken down vehicles can end up stranded in live lanes.

Edmund King, AA president, said: “Coroners, and indeed police and crime commissioners, have voiced serious safety concerns with ‘smart’ motorways, which makes this inquiry very timely.

“For more than a decade the AA has campaigned to improve the safety of smart motorways*. Tragically, too many people have died on these roads in the interim.

“Hopefully this inquiry will concentrate minds to stress the urgency of safety improvements.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Petrol and diesel pump prices could rise by 10p per litre as the price of oil hits a 13-month high.

Analysts are predicting dramatic fuel price hike as the price of a barrel of oil is set to soar from $64 to $80.

The RAC is warning that UK drivers need to brace themselves for further potentially dramatic pump price increases.

Having dropped to just $13 last April, the price of a barrel of oil has now recovered, jumping by $20 in three months. Some analysts are now predicting oil could reach $80 a barrel this year, a price last seen in October 2018, and petrol prices could rise to around 130p and diesel to 134.5p based on today’s exchange rate.

At $100 a barrel – a price that JPMorgan has said is a possibility next year – petrol and diesel could hit records high of 143p and 148p respectively.

RAC Fuel Watch data shows that petrol prices have already been rising for 13 straight weeks, with a litre now 8.03p more expensive than November 22, 2020, at 121.84p per litre.

The situation with diesel is even more pronounced, with prices now having risen for 14 weeks (up 7.68p since November 15, 2020) at 124.91p per litre.

RAC fuel spokesman Simon Williams said: “When the pandemic hit last year, the effect on forecourt prices was nothing if not dramatic – those still driving through March and April paid less to fill up than they had done since mid-2016, when the price of oil plummeted as a result of deliberate over production.

“But by the summer the oil price had rebounded and today is at a level not seen since the start of 2020, meaning storm clouds are once again gathering over UK forecourts. Ironically and rather unfortunately, as economic confidence grows as measures to combat the coronavirus take effect, it’s likely to mean drivers end up paying more to fill up in the coming weeks.

“The last thing drivers, and possibly the economy, need is a fuel duty increase – not least as petrol prices have now been rising for 13 consecutive weeks. A hike in duty at a time of rising fuel prices could put unprecedented pressure on lower-income households and might have the negative effect of forcing everyone who depends on their cars to consider cutting back on other spending.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News