The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

The future of the plug-in car and van grant is expected to be revealed by the new Chancellor in the Budget in March.

 

The electric car and van subsidy was cut in 2018 by £1,000 and fleets were told it would no longer apply to hybrid cars with a range of less than 70 zero emission miles.

 

The Government said the reduction in funding – from £4,500 to £3,500 – for the cleanest cars, and withdrawing the grant completely for the likes of the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV and the Toyota Prius Plug-in, was a sign of its success.

 

Talking to delegates at the ICFM’s annual conference last summer, deputy head of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV), Phil Killingley, acknowledged that incentives will be of continued importance beyond 2020, but stressed the detail was still being “talked through”.

 

Meanwhile, the Treasury told the Telegraph that “consumers incentives will continue to play a role beyond 2020”.

 

A Whitehall source said: “We have always said we would phase out the subsidies gradually, but there are other ways we can help people to go electric.”

 

BVRLA chief executive, Gerry Keaney, says that the Budget on March 11 will be an opportunity to set the tone for a new decade in which the transition to decarbonised road transport will be won or lost.

 

“Fleets are being asked to invest billions of pounds in new electric vehicle technology and infrastructure, which comes at a hefty price premium to its petrol and diesel alternatives,” he said.

 

“To achieve these goals the Government must provide a clear support package through to at least 2025. It must preserve the Plug in Car and Van Grants, maintain a strong set of tax incentives and tackle the huge and often arbitrary costs associated with fleet charging infrastructure.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

I know that you like to read legal stories that make no sense whatsoever – so here is one that makes no sense whatsoever. It shows that you can be held responsible for the health and safety of anyone who breaks into your property! Totally ridiculous.

 

The article revolves around the following incident. Click on the link before reading further

 

https://garagewire.co.uk/news/thief-crushed-to-death-while-stealing-catalytic-converter/

 

The question was asked – what liability could there be on the garage where someone breaks in and ends up getting injured or getting killed when they are there unlawfully?

 

Some people think that if you have broken into someone else’s property with ill intent then you deserve anything and everything you get.  This is not so in the eyes of the law – as Norfolk farmer Tony Martin found when he shot burglars encroaching into his home in 1999 killing one of them – as he was sent to prison initially for murder but downgraded to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.

 

It is the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 which imposes a duty of care on landowners (occupiers) to take reasonable care for the safety of trespassers in respect of any risk of their suffering by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises – or to things done or omitted to be done on them.

 

The threshold test is set out in Section 1 (3) of the Act which provides that a duty is owed to trespassers in respect of any such risk if

 

(a)        The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;

 

(b)        The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger; and

 

(c)        The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection.

 

As you can imagine, cases turn on their specific facts such as several years ago when the High Court in Buckett v Staffordshire County Council dismissed a claim brought against them by a Claimant after he fell through a skylight whilst trespassing on the roof a school when he was aged 16.  The court decided that even though his presence on the roof near the skylight ought reasonably to have been foreseen, the council did not owe a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 as the skylight’s structure, makeup and location on the roof did not constitute a danger.

 

Even though children trespassing on the roof and proximity to the skylight was foreseeable, the claimant’s injuries were caused by his own action of jumping onto the skylight.  And because the skylight was not faulty or inherently dangerous, the council was not liable.

 

This followed a principle set by the House of Lords in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council in 2004 where a 12 year old was injured falling on a fire escape when trespassing.  As the fire escape was not defective, in need of repair or otherwise dangerous, the council had no liability. You see what I mean – totally dopey! By Graham Hill

As many of my readers know I have written about this in the past because it can be very confusing. My work with the BBC and various motoring journals has highlighted some of the crooked methods to extract large ‘deposits’ from customers then mis-state the law in order to prevent paying money back when the customer decides not to go ahead with a purchase.

 

A law firm has given advice to dealers as follows:

 

It has long been thought that if a consumer decides to pull out of a car purchase having paid a deposit, that the car dealer is automatically entitled to retain that deposit.  However, there are several important considerations that need to be met before that is allowable, the first of which is especially relevant.

 

1. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that a contract term may be considered unfair (and thus unenforceable) if it is “A term which has the object or effect of permitting the trader to retain sums paid by the consumer where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the trader where the trader is the party cancelling the contract. We are advising that your terms/conditions, order form and any document that makes reference to a non-refundable deposit, be reworded as below, followed (where possible) by the consumer’s signature:

 

“By paying a deposit you are entering into a legally binding contract.  If you change your mind and do not pay the balance due, you will be in breach of contract and we will be entitled to retain the deposit in full and not return it to you.  However, if we are in breach of contract and do not agree to sell you the car upon payment of the balance, we will return your deposit in full and you may be entitled to additional compensation from us up to the full value of the deposit amount”.

 

2. The amount of deposit is the most you can retain. You cannot retain a deposit and then on top of that seek losses such as prep time or having to re-advertise or re-selling at a lower value.  The whole purpose of a deposit is that it gives certainty as to what can be lost in the event of contractual beach – regardless of whether your actual loss is greater or less than the amount of the deposit.  HOWEVER………

 

3. The deposit figure must be proportionate to the value of the vehicle – you cannot simply seek to punish the buyer by making him pay a hugely disproportionate deposit and retaining it if he or she does not pay the balance. The Court of Appeal ruled in 2016 (and gave a new test of what is allowable) and removed the test of “reasonable pre-estimate of loss” and “penalty clauses” and replaced it with this, somewhat wordy conclusion:

 

“The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.[Emphasis added].”

 

4. Whilst the courts – and only the courts can decide – we think that a deposit that is greater than 10-15% of the value of the car might be seen as difficult to justify except in very rare circumstances. Maybe where something is being built to such an unusual, bespoke and personal specification that the sale to anyone else other than the actual buyer would be compromised substantially or could only be re-sold at a price significantly less than agreed with the intended buyer (who then did not pay the balance after the deposit was made).

 

5. Where a deposit is taken in contemplation that the car will be financed by, say a hire-purchase agreement, the deposit must be refunded if the consumer withdraws from the deal BEFORE all three parties sign the finance agreement – as set out by Section 57 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Withdrawal from a Prospective Agreement). This does NOT form an obligation to fund the purchase of the car by some other means.

 

6. Where the consumer cancels the credit agreement within 14 days of all parties signing the credit agreement, then there IS an obligation to buy the car by some alternative means BUT we will argue that this obligation is between the consumer and the finance company (not the dealer) as the finance company have bought the car from the dealer, has good title in it and the dealer is not in breach of contract. Again, though, some finance companies may, in their terms and conditions have a clause that states that the dealer has to indemnify them in the event that this happens!

 

So, anyone who tells you that the law of refunds of deposits is straight-forward, invite them to read the above!

 

My advice has always been to pay as little deposit as possible if you need to pay a deposit to secure a car. If possible pay with a credit card as this gives you greater rights. Even the suggestion of 10 – 15% is not reasonable in my opinion.

 

You can also get your deposit back if it was paid towards the finance of the car as shown above. So if you are paying a deposit and intend the money to be used to pay towards the HP or PCP agreement you should make sure that you make that clear to the dealer and have it written on the receipt. But beware that when the contract has been executed (all parties have signed it) you cannot cancel the contract without the risk of being in breach. Don’t sign the contract till the last minute.

 

If you have a large deposit to pay towards the finance keep it till the last minute. We only provide contract hire and personal contract hire and we take no money whatsoever until you have received your car. The safest way. The initial rental is taken by direct debit after the car has been delivered and signed for.  By Graham Hill

 

This crime is on the increase as joyriders and thieves get smart and stick on cloned number plates to avoid detection. With more number plate recognition cameras aimed at drivers the crooks were getting caught far too quickly for their liking so they have reverted to making up number plates that they’ve seen on cars in adverts or on the road and sticking them over the original plates.

 

But what if your number is cloned and you receive a speeding ticket, parking ticket or other penalty? According to a firm of solicitors far too many people ignore the tickets on the basis that they are charged for parking in a car park in an area miles away that they’ve never visited or caught speeding at a time when they were tucked up in bed. But you mustn’t ignore the ticket.

 

As one lawyer points out: Cloned vehicles can cause havoc, especially when drivers  fail to respond to the notices, sometimes in the belief that if it is not their car, no ruling can be made against them. However, once the process is up and running, drivers need to make sure they respond to any notice and quickly.

 

In the case of cloned vehicles, you will need a police reference number and photographs of your vehicle to evidence that the vehicle carrying your plates is not the real vehicle.

 

Even if you respond quickly, chances are that the authority will reject your case which means you will need to go to appeal. Miss the deadlines and you are very likely to lose any chance to appeal and you will find yourself with fines, charges and penalties plus costs to pay and this can ultimately end in a bailiff visit with even more costs to pay.

 

In short, these cases are a pain and it can be difficult to get the fine discharged on first attempt but if you stick to the deadlines, you will get a chance of an appeal and it is at this appeal stage, that these cases are usually won. So if you receive a parking or icket that you know doesn’t apply to to, don’t just ignore them, act immediately and inform the police that you suspect that your number has been cloned. By Graham Hill

There has been an increase of late in extensions and customers taking out 4 year PCP, PCH and contract hire agreements. This is done mainly to save money on the monthly rental but after allowing for the various costs that come into play after 3 years you may find that it’s a false saving.

 

When I looked to extend the lease on my Mercedes E Class I checked with my local dealer and was quoted nearly £900 for a 1 year extension to the Mercedes warranty. Had I leased my car over 4 years the lease cost would have been just £18 + VAT less per month when compared to the 3 year rate.

 

Then there are other subscriptions such as the Sat Nav which generally come with free updates for 3 years but you have to pay the subscription thereafter. Roadside assistance is also generally included for a minimum of 3 years with all new cars so there’s another extra to pay for. It all adds up.

 

On top of that, there is service and maintenance and possibly another pair of tyres. Obviously, as the car gets older it requires more wear and tear parts to ne replaced, brake discs, suspension dampers, filters etc.

 

So this raises the question as to whether it’s worth taking a car over 4 years given the fact that you will need to take out an extended warranty that could represent around half of the down payment on the next car, which of course comes with a new car warranty.

 

There are of course cars that come with 5 and even 7 year warranties but on closer inspection, you will find that a large number of components drop off cover after 3 years as a result of normal wear and tear. So things are not always as they seem. You could, of course, Google the market for a lower-priced warranty than the manufacturer’s own. However, whilst they love to take your money there are some that hate paying it back out.

 

Beware of betterment! As cars get older the warranty companies will try it on. Let’s say in the 4^th year you have a problem with the gearbox. The manufacturer or the warranty company agrees to replace it under the warranty but as the car is, say three and a half years old they have a betterment clause in their warranty that says, if the replacement part puts the car in a better condition than it was before the part went faulty that you should contribute to the replacement.

 

So the replacement gearbox could cost you 2 or even £3,000 towards the cost of the replacement gearbox. It’s a scandal. So if you are going to take out a 4-year contract or extend a 3 year contract, check the true cost of that last year and if you extend the warranty check the betterment clause. Also check out Warranty Direct. They may be a little more expensive than some other 3^rd party warranties but the have some of the best terms and conditions and no betterment charges. By Graham Hill

The ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans will be brought forward to 2035 and will now include hybrids.

 

The Government had previously announced they would end the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles from 2040 but would still allow the sale of hybrid vehicles that had a zero-emission capability.

 

However, speaking at the Conservative party conference last October, transport secretary Grant Shapps hinted at bringing the date forward.

 

Launching the next UN climate conference COP26 today (Tuesday February 4), the Prime Minister Boris Johnson will confirm the much tougher, stricter timetable.

 

Shapps said: “This Government’s £1.5 billion strategy to make owning an electric vehicle as easy as possible is working – last year alone, a fully electric car was sold every 15 minutes.

 

“We want to go further than ever before. That’s why we are bringing forward our already ambitious target to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars to tackle climate change and reduce emissions.”

 

The Government says it will continue to work with all sectors of industry to accelerate the rollout of zero emission vehicles.

 

But, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), which represents car and van makers in the UK, says the Government has set the new target without a plan showing how it intends to get there.

 

Mike Hawes, SMMT chief executive, said: “Manufacturers are fully invested in a zero emissions future, with some 60 plug-in models now on the market and 34 more coming in 2020. However, with current demand for this still expensive technology still just a fraction of sales, it’s clear that accelerating an already very challenging ambition will take more than industry investment.

 

“This is about market transformation, yet we still don’t have clarity on the future of the plug-in car grant – the most significant driver of EV uptake – which ends in just 60 days’ time, while the UK’s charging network is still woefully inadequate.

 

“If the UK is to lead the global zero emissions agenda, we need a competitive marketplace and a competitive business environment to encourage manufacturers to sell and build here.

 

“A date without a plan will merely destroy value today. So we therefore need to hear how government plans to fulfil its ambitions in a sustainable way, one that safeguards industry and jobs, allows people from all income groups and regions to adapt and benefit, and, crucially, does not undermine sales of today’s low emission technologies, including popular hybrids, all of which are essential to deliver air quality and climate change goals now.”

 

Helen Clarkson, CEO of the international non-profit The Climate Group, welcomed the “more ambitious” target from the Government.

 

However, she said: “We believe that this could still be sooner – and that to be a global leader, especially post-Brexit, a 2030 phase-out commitment is required; without this, we risk being out of step with our international peers.

 

“Our business campaign for the 100% adoption of electric vehicles by 2030, EV100, has 62 corporate members, many of which are British, including AstraZeneca, BT, Centrica, Foxtons, Mitie, RBS, SSE and Unilever. Businesses are showing what is possible and The Climate Group would love to see this level of ambition matched.”

 

Through EV100, the UK has the second highest number of corporate fleet vehicles committed to switching to electric, after Germany.

 

Government policy must be strong and consistent to accelerate this transition, and to help the UK become a world leader on electric vehicles, it says.

 

So far, eight countries have already committed to more ambitious phase-out dates than the UK, while Scotland has had a 2032 phase-out date for new petrol and diesel vehicles in place since 2017.

 

The RAC was not surprised by the Government’s plan to bring forward the date to ban the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles.

 

RAC head of policy Nicholas Lyes said: “A more ambitious target should be the catalyst for faster change, but there are clearly many hurdles to cross.

 

“Manufacturers face a great challenge in switching their production from conventional powertrains to cleaner electric technology.

 

“More electric vehicles (EVs) will also require a great deal of investment in charging infrastructure – particularly for those who rely on on-street parking outside their homes.”

 

Lyes also believes that we should not overlook the role plug-in hybrid vehicles could play in bridging the gap to going completely electric.

 

“In the meantime we urge the Government to extend the plug-in car grant for at least another three years to help those that want to go electric, but who are put off by the high initial costs,” he said.

 

“At a local level, authorities should also incentivise their use with cheaper parking rates and lower residents’ parking permit fees.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

For years I’ve been complaining about the weaknesses of recalls when cars have safety recalls that put drivers’ lives at risk. There are still hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road that haven’t had safety recall repairs carried out. So I find it ridiculous that the Government is introducing legislation for environmental reasons.

 

The Government is seeking new powers in the Environment Bill to compel vehicle manufacturers to recall vehicles when they do not meet the relevant environmental standards.

 

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) introduced the Bill to Parliament on January 30th.

 

It will create new powers to stop the export of plastic waste to developing countries and will enshrine environmental principles in law, while introducing measures to improve air and water quality, and restore habitats so plants and wildlife can thrive.

 

The new vehicle recall powers are included in an effort to help improve air quality in urban areas.

 

Environment secretary Theresa Villiers said: “We have set out our pitch to be a world leader on the environment as we leave the EU and the Environment Bill is a crucial part of achieving this aim.

 

“It sets a gold standard for improving air quality, protecting nature, increasing recycling and cutting down on plastic waste.”

 

As well as the measures outlined, the legislation will also create legally-binding environmental improvement targets.

 

A new independent Office for Environmental Protection will be established to scrutinise environmental policy and law, investigate complaints and take enforcement action against public authorities, if necessary, to uphold environmental standards.

 

The office’s powers will cover all climate change legislation and hold the government to account on its commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

 

The Environment Bill was introduced into parliament in October 2019 and has been re-introduced to parliament following the general election. I agree that this is important but not as important as safety recalls that could kill drivers, passengers and other road users. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The following report only covers contract hire, not PCP contracts where the cars are returned rather than bought or part exchanged. End of contract (EOC) fair wear and tear damage charges for cars have reduced in the past 12 months, by 2% or £7.50 on average to £314.53 (2018: £322), marking the first reversal for four years, FN50 data suggests.

 

The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) updated its Fair Wear and Tear guide in April after feedback from end-user fleets, its own members, remarketing experts and other fleet stakeholders to help improve clarity on what is often a contentious issue.

 

However, while the absolute figures are in decline, there are clear differences between the charges levied at cars on business contract hire (operating and finance lease) and those funded via salary sacrifice schemes.

 

Leased cars were hit with average fair wear and tear charges of £326, while salary sacrifice cars averaged £271. The FN50 asked leasing companies to split out the figures for the first time.

 

It suggests that either employees take greater care of cars their perceive as their own than they do a company vehicle – certainly this could be the case when comparing job-need cars to sal/sac – or that leasing companies are less willing to charge individuals than they are companies.

 

There were also differences in the percentage of cars charged and the level of the damage waiver.

 

Overall, the average percentage of cars being charged increased from 39% to 40%, while the average damage waiver fell from £167 to £117.

 

However, 43% of leased cars were charged fair wear and tear but only 31% of salary sacrifice cars were hit with charges. Likewise, the damage waiver for leased cars was £112, but sal/sac drivers had a more generous £133.

 

Both were significantly below last year’s overall average. This means there is a much smaller margin for error, increasing the likelihood that charges will be applied when vehicles are returned.

 

Average charges for leased cars covered a wide spread, from a high of £759 to a low of just £45 per car, showing wild variances from leasing company to leasing company.

 

If you isolate the 10 biggest leasing companies that provided figures, the average leased car figure is £319.51, down from £330 last year, so the companies that account for the most volume in the UK leasing industry have charges at a lower level than average.

 

The BVRLA’s aim with its guide is to provide an industry-wide, accepted standard that defines fair wear and tear when vehicles are returned by fleets to their leasing or rental company.

 

It also provides advice for best practice in vehicle maintenance and upkeep that will prevent unacceptable wear and tear charges occurring.

 

A BVRLA spokesman said: “With personal contract hire responsible for a growing portion of the BVRLA car fleet, there was extra focus on improving clarity and demonstrating fairness, especially when customers return a vehicle at end of lease.

 

“With many customers new to the concept of vehicle leasing, and possibly unsure of their responsibilities in maintaining the vehicle, members will be providing more help and support during the period of lease or rental.”

 

This might also explain the lower charges levied at salary sacrifice drivers, many of whom will also be facing wear and tear charges for the first time. Their experiences here will go some way to determining whether they stay in the scheme.

 

The guide gives advice to drivers about what they need to do to avoid end of lease charges, where they can get advice on routine maintenance, servicing and appraising the vehicle at the end of the lease and what they can expect the day the vehicle is returned, as well as how to complain if things go wrong.

 

Some leasing companies offer a fixed-cost menu of charges set out at the start of the contract.

 

Others do not repair vehicles before sending them out to auction, so do not charge for the cost to repair the damage.

 

Instead, they charge for the loss of value against the residual value due to the damage.

 

There are other alternatives. Fleet management specialist ARI Fleet UK has moved into the finance lease space, offering funding with no mileage limits or end of contract damage charges.

 

Rory Mackinnon, head of asset funding at ARI Fleet UK, explained: “Fleet managers are looking for support on cost management strategies and we have been working closely with our customers to deliver this.

 

“We identified an opportunity for a specialist finance solution to help drive down fleet costs. For too long, fleet managers have had to contend with excessive leasing fees and we are looking to challenge the status quo and disrupt the market.”

 

Nick Hardy, sales and marketing director at Ogilvie Fleet, Fleet News’ Leasing Company of the Year (up to 20,000 vehicles) and 15th in the FN50, says its fixed-cost menu pricing approach creates a transparent process for customers.

 

“We don’t see EOC as a profit centre,” said Hardy. “We need to cover our costs and, at the moment, we’re still doing that. If we weren’t washing our face we may need to go back to customers and have that conversation, but at the moment I’m glad we don’t need to do that.”

 

Ogilvie isn’t the only leasing company in the UK that uses a menu pricing scheme for EOC, but those using this system are still in the minority.

 

Hardy said: “Everyone should be charging within the BVRLA guidelines, but there’s nothing in there that is going to dictate pricing.

 

“Customers are wise to some leasing companies looking at EOC as a way to claw back some profit, so I would say customers are being more careful about the condition of vehicles, rather than being more careless.”

 

Caroline Sandall, chairman at fleet operators association ACFO, said: “We worked with the BVRLA on developing the new guide in April this year and, generally, the rules have relaxed.

 

“The updated guide should make it much easier and clearer for drivers what is expected. The level of damages is very black and white and prescriptive so there should be less confusion on EOC.”

 

Sandall says areas like dents on the bonnet or alloy damage were particularly contentious elements for fleets on fair wear and tear charges.

 

She added: “There were some small grey areas on the old version, but now it is much more prescriptive around the number of acceptable chips in a given area on the vehicle.

 

“There has been an increase in EOC complaints for the BVRLA due to the increased focus on personal leasing, but they have worked to make the guidelines much clearer to address that.”

 

Salary sacrifice charges

 

The average end of contract charge (EOC) for vehicles on salary sacrifice was £271, according to the FN50 data.

 

This level of charging is 20.3% lower than the leasing average, or £55 less.

 

Salary sacrifice was the second largest market segment for funding type after contract hire in this year’s FN50 figures, representing 3.9% of volumes overall, but is still a small fraction of the market compared with traditional contract hire which accounts for 92% of the market.

 

A smaller number of vehicles on salary sacrifice attracted EOC charges, too, at 31% compared with leased cars at 43%.

 

Both figures suggest leasing companies are more reticent to apply charges to a form of funding that has been under pressure from changes to the taxation rules. Nevertheless, there are big variances in the average charges applied, ranging from £485 to £105. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

UK drivers are risking their licences by breaking the speed limit when overtaking, shocking government figures have shown.

 

According to official stats, in 2017 almost 8,000 vehicles were involved in collisions when overtaking – and over half (55%) of these were cars.

 

Safety chiefs are now urging motorists to watch their speed when overtaking to avoid putting themselves and other road users at risk – and avoid getting hit with heavy fines or even losing their licence.

 

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) is keen to set aside myths that speeding is acceptable when overtaking another vehicle.

 

“The common-sense message is do not overtake unless you are sure you can complete the manoeuvre safely and without causing risk or inconvenience to another road user,” warns an RoSPA spokesman.

 

“Although you should complete an overtaking manoeuvre quickly, never exceed the speed limit for the road.”

 

As rule 125 of the Highway Code states, the speed limit is the absolute maximum you should drive on any particular road. This does not exclude overtaking.

 

Exceeding the speed limit for any reason is dangerous as well as illegal and could see you hit with penalty points, a hefty fine, or even being banned from the roads entirely.

 

While overtaking is, of course, legal, there are strict rules about how and when it is safe to overtake – the most fundamental being that you should only overtake ‘when it is safe and legal to do so’.

 

If you’re caught speeding while overtaking, you could collect a fine up to £2,500 and six points on your licence, depending on your speed and the road you’re caught on.

 

Should you get 12 penalty points or more in any three-year period, you’ll have your licence revoked. By Graham Hill thanks to the RAC

Drivers should book an eyesight test in 2020, says GEM Motoring Assist.

 

This, according to the road safety organisation, would help in reducing collisions and injuries on the UK’s roads.

 

GEM road safety officer Neil Worth, said: “What better time than the year 2020 to get your vision checked properly and ensure the risks you face as a driver or rider are as low as possible?

 

“You should only drive when you’re sure you can see properly.

 

“After all, poor eyesight is linked to more than 3,000 fatal and serious injury collisions every year.

 

“We continue to be concerned that there are too many people driving whose eyesight has deteriorated to a dangerous level.

 

“This puts their own safety at risk, as well as the safety of others sharing the same road space.”

 

The eyesight test was introduced to the driving test in 1937 and has only been changed in minor ways over the years to reflect changing number plate sizes.

 

It is the only eyesight test drivers are required to take until they reach the age of 70.

 

Opticians should examine a driver’s field of view, as is done in America, to check whether motorists can see and react to what’s happening around them, according to GEM.

 

Worth added: “So this year we are encouraging drivers to ensure their eyesight goes beyond 20/20.

 

“After all, 20/20 is only an expression of normal visual acuity, but the requirements for safe driving go beyond clarity of central vision.

 

“A detailed professional eye examination will mean any problems can be identified and – in the vast majority of cases – corrected, meaning the risks are reduced considerably.

 

“So many people are staying behind the wheel into their eighties and beyond.

 

“This, coupled with the greater volume of traffic and an increase in distractions, both inside and outside the vehicle, points to the clear need for more regular and detailed eyesight testing.”

 

“Asking someone to read a number plate at 20.5 metres (67 feet) cannot on its own be a measure of their fitness to continue driving.

 

“A proper eye test will also measure peripheral awareness, eye coordination, depth perception, ability to focus and colour vision.”

 

GEM has called for drivers to have an eye test every two years, ensuring there are no safety concerns about their vision and to deal with any issues at an early stage.

 

The organisation is also calling for every new driver to produce evidence of a recent eye test when first applying for a licence, and to obtain a mandatory vision test every 10 years in line with licence renewal. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News