The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Fewer than half of van drivers use hands-free or Bluetooth technology to make calls, according to research conducted by Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles.

 

Van drivers make on average seven calls a day whilst driving and spend an average of 37 minutes on the phone for work each day however, only 41% of drivers use hands-free and Bluetooth technology on a frequent basis, according to a Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles survey.

 

Claire English, head of fleet at Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles, said: “Mobile phone use behind the wheel is a topic that we’ve been monitoring over the past couple of years and the recent statistics show it’s still a huge safety problem on UK roads.

 

Despite carrying a hefty punishment, it lacks the taboo of other offences such as drink-driving and this needs to change.

 

Van drivers ignoring mobile phone laws risk getting a £200 fine and six penalty points on their licence.

 

According to the RAC Report on Motoring, 17% of drivers in the UK admitted to sending and receiving texts, checking e-mails or posting on social media while driving. Last year, Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles revealed 23% of drivers do not have hands-free kit in their van.

 

The Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles research also revealed that van drivers in London, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the North East are most likely to dial using the handsfree-technology while Scottish van drivers are twice as likely to give hands-free a miss compared to any other region.

 

Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles offers a Bluetooth hands-free kit as standard across its entire model range. English said: “As part of our Working With You promise, we’re committed to improving safety on UK roads for both our customers and other road users, always ensuring we provide the right equipment for the job, for example offering Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and a handsfree kit as standard across the range.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The following information is guidance provided by the Government. During the MOT 6 month exemption period you must ensure that the vehicle is still roadworthy and safe to drive.

 

You’re responsible for making sure your vehicle is always safe to drive (‘roadworthy’). It can be unsafe even if you have a current MOT certificate.

 

You can be fined up to £2,500, be banned from driving and get 3 penalty points for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

 

Checks you should carry out

 

Every time you drive you should check:

• the windscreen, windows and mirrors are clean
• all lights work
• the brakes work

 

Your vehicle’s handbook will tell you how often to check the:

• engine oil
• water level in the radiator or expansion tank
• brake fluid level
• battery
• windscreen and rear window washer bottles – top up with windscreen washer fluid if necessary
• tyres – they must have the correct tread depth and be free of cuts and defects

 

The handbook will also tell you when your vehicle needs to be serviced.

 

Tyre tread

 

Tread must be a certain depth depending on the type of vehicle:

• cars, light vans and light trailers – 1.6 millimetres (mm)
• motorcycles, large vehicles and passenger-carrying vehicles – 1mm

Mopeds only need to have visible tread.

 

There must be tread across the middle three-quarters and around the entire tyre.

 

By Graham Hill – reprinted from Government website

Drivers will be granted a six-month exemption from MOT testing, allowing people to carry on with essential travel, the Department for Transport (DfT) has announced.

 

Cars, motorcycles and vans will be granted a MOT exemption that will enable essential travel to work where it cannot be done from home, or shop for necessities.

 

All cars, motorcycles and vans that require a MOT test will be exempt from needing a test from March 30. The Department for Transport (DfT) urges that vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition as drivers could face prosecution if they are driving unsafe vehicles.

 

This 6 month extension has caused concern with the IGA who say that the current MOT failure rate is 31%, which means that nearly 10 million vehicles do not meet even the basic roadworthiness level of compliance. DVSA warns drivers that their car must stay roadworthy and that fines can be issued for up to £2,500 (with a ban and 3 points) for driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

 

The DfT advises that people should stay at home and avoid travel. The only reasons people should leave their homes is set out in the government guidance.

 

Transport secretary, Grant Shapps, said: “We must ensure those on the frontline of helping the nation combat COVID19 are able to do so.

 

“Allowing this temporary exemption from vehicle testing will enable vital services such as deliveries to continue, frontline workers to get to work, and people get essential food and medicine.

 

“Safety is key, which is why garages will remain open for essential repair work.”

 

Legislation will be introduced on March 30 and will come into immediate effect for 12 months. Drivers will still need to get their vehicle tested until the new regulations come into place, if they need to use it. Garages will remain open for essential repair work.

 

If vehicle owners cannot get an MOT as they are in self-isolation, the DfT says it is working with insurers and the police to ensure people aren’t unfairly penalised for things out of their control.

 

“The temporary MoT exemption is positive as it will allow vital services to continue and aftersales workshops to prioritise essential repair works on critical vehicles”, said Sue Robinson, director of the National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA), which represents franchised car and commercial vehicle retailers in the UK.

 

“We welcome the transport secretary’s comments that ‘safety is key’ and aftersales departments will remain open for essential repair work.”

 

Karen Hilton, chief commercial officer at HeyCar, believes granting the six-month exemption from MOT testing is the right thing to do. She said: “We’re really pleased with the news that MOTs have been scrapped for at least six months. We’ve had queries from concerned customers about what they should do, as taking their car for an MOT seems to conflict with the Government advice to stay at home. People have enough worries in this time of crisis without having to consider how they get their car in for MOT.

 

“Scrapping the MOT for all vehicles while the country goes through the coronavirus lockdown is the only sensible approach, removing risk for motorists and mechanics alike.

 

“This isn’t business as usual, we are all being told to stay indoors unless absolutely necessary and while the MOT is vital for all vehicles, especially older ones from a safety point of view, it’s just another one of those appointments that will now have to wait in order to protect the health of the community.

 

“Many mechanics are small businesses who will be hit hard by the loss of income. There is sure to be a wave of motorists who need an MOT once the exemption is lifted.”

 

To be clear, the Government are currently saying that MOT Centres and garages can stay open after 30 March but obviously all the advice re social distancing should continue to be followed so that means:

 

• Taking contactless payments (the limit goes up to £45 from £30 on 1 April 2020)
• Not printing MOT certificates
• Keeping customers and staff at least 2 meters apart
• Remind employees and customers to wash their hands for as long as it takes to watch Son Heung-Min score and celebrate his wonder goal against Burney in December
• Clean and disinfect objects and surfaces that are touched regularly
• Use seat covers and disposable gloves

 

By Graham Hill thanks to various contributors.

A record number of people avoided penalty points on their licence last year, after taking driver awareness courses.

 

The figures, from the National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme, show almost 1.5 million people, including company car and van drivers, chose to take a course, rather than add points and face a possible ban.

 

That equates a threefold increase in the past nine years, when a little more than 467,000 drivers attended a course.

 

In 2019, the vast majority – some 86% (1.28m) of drivers – avoided points by taking a speed awareness course, up 8.1% (96,000) on the previous year.

 

This was followed by almost 107,000 drivers, who were sent on the ‘national motorway awareness course’ for offences committed on smart motorways, including breaking variable speed limits, ignoring red ‘X’ signs and wrongly stopping in emergency lay-bys.

 

The course was introduced three years ago.

 

A further 76,000-plus drivers took the ‘what’s driving us?’ course aimed at drivers caught tailgating or using a mobile phone at the wheel.

 

The classroom-based courses can cost up to £100 and take about four hours to complete.

 

Research by the RAC Foundation – based on Home Office data for 2018-19 – suggests that 44% of all speeding offences detected in England and Wales result in someone being sent on a course.

 

“It would be good to think that as more and more people pass through the doors of these courses, so our roads are getting safer,” said Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation. “For some, at least, that appears to be true. The challenge is in making the lessons stick once the motorists attending them are back out in the often all-too-aggressive world of modern traffic.”

 

Analysis of 5,000 UK business drivers over a 12-month period revealed that they exceeded speed limits by 19.4%, on average (48mph on a 40mph stretch and so on).

 

The data, from telematics firm Airmax Remote, also showed that there were, on average, eight speeding events per mile.

 

Richard Perham, managing director of Airmax Remote, said: “Speeding is a major issue, especially for businesses that rely on fleets – not only from a safety point of view, but also the impact on fuel economy and poor mpg.

 

“It is imperative that drivers who are guilty of speeding are given the appropriate training to ensure that they comply with road speed limits.

 

“Not only can businesses suffer from a poor profile resulting from speeding (as company branding can appear on a vehicle), the extreme of this is a corporate manslaughter case and if the driver responsible for a fatal accident is known to have a long history of speeding, then blame can be placed on the business.”

 

Home Office figures show there were 2,386,780 speeding offences detected in England and Wales in 2018-19 – a 37% rise on the 1,740,217 detected in 2011-12.

 

It was also 4% higher than the 2,292,534 speeding offences recorded in 2017-18.

 

The total number of all motoring offences detected across the two countries in 2018-19 was 2,837,661, meaning speeding accounted for 84% of them.

 

Of the 2,386,780 speeding offences detected in 2018-19: 44% resulted in the offender being sent on a speed awareness course; 34% attracted fixed penalty notices (FPNs); 12% were later cancelled; and 10% resulted in court action.

 

The analysis – based on Home Office data and carried out by Dr Adam Snow of Liverpool John Moores University and Doreen Lam of the RAC Foundation – reveals the headline figure for those caught speeding hides large variations between constabularies.

 

West Yorkshire topped the list with 181,867 people caught speeding in 2018-19; second was Avon and Somerset (159,210) followed by the Metropolitan Police, including City of London (157,494).

 

At the other end of the scale Wiltshire Constabulary caught only 807 people speeding, Cleveland caught 11,937 and Derbyshire 12,256. Wiltshire turned off its speed cameras in 2010.

 

Across the 43 constabularies of England and Wales, the vast majority (97%) of offences were detected by speed cameras.

 

The variations across police forces will, in part, be down to geographical area, road type and traffic volume. They will also be created by local policing priorities.

 

Gooding concluded: “The simple rule for drivers who don’t want to risk ending up with a speeding ticket is not to break the limit in the first place.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News.

In this article I’m warning about Coronavirus and how to best protect the inside of your car without damage. Whilst most of us are taking precautions at work and at home it’s easy to forget about our cars. And if we remember to protect our cars you should know that some cleaners that we use on work surfaces are not suitable for the inside of your car and can cause serious damage.

 

For example, bleach and hydrogen peroxide both kill the virus but can damage your upholstery. And I’m not talking neat I’m talking about those chemicals as a constituent part of the cleaner. So it’s important that you check the component parts of any cleaner that you intend to use. Another dodgy ingredient is ammonia. You should not use any ammonia-based product on car touchscreens as they can damage the anti-glare and anti-fingerprint coatings.

 

If you are the only person in your car then the risk is reduced but of course if you participate in a car share or you regularly rent cars you need to take more care. Make sure you have some sanitiser gel to use in the car and to share with passengers. Then also treat the steering wheel (considered to be one of the highest sources of germs that you will regularly come into contact with – higher than a toilet seat).

 

Clean the gear shift, door handles, inside and out, indicator and windscreen wiper stalks, buttons, touch screens, armrests, grab handles, seat adjusters, in fact anything that you or a passenger may have come into contact with.

 

So having checked the ingredients for the above you also don’t want to pay over the odds for product that is aimed at auto interiors but are being sold at a premium. So what can you use that is cheap? Experts recommend Isopropyl Alcohol as being the most effective against Coronavirus and safe for the interior of your car. The most effective contain over 70% alcohol.

 

Manufacturers of product in the US suggest that most, if not all car surfaces have been tested safe to be cleaned with Isopropyl alcohol, from plastic to metal and leather, even soft cloth upholstery. If in doubt consult the manufacturer/dealer and if you are really worried use their proprietary product. Don’t forget if you use say a bleach-based product and it damages the leather seats etc.and the car is being handed back at the end of the agreement you could be charged a substantial amount to repair/replace the damaged seating.

 

Vigorous washing with soap and water can also destroy a coronavirus. Coronaviruses are surrounded by a protective envelope that helps them to infect other cells, and destroying that envelope can effectively disarm them.

 

“Friction from cleaning also participates in the destruction,” says Stephen Thomas, M.D., chief of infectious diseases and director of global health at Upstate Medical University in Syracuse. “You want to do the best with what you have, so even soap and water can chip away at the risk.”

 

Soap and water are also safe for most car interiors—especially fabrics and older leather that may have begun to crack. Just be sure not to scrub too hard, says Larry Kosilla, president of car detailing company AMMO NYC and host of a popular YouTube channel about car detailing.

 

Most car leathers and imitation leathers have urethane coatings for protection, which is safe to clean with alcohol. But most leathers are dyed, and cleaning too vigorously can remove the dye.

 

Kosilla says he’s heard from car owners who think their light-colored leather is getting dirtier as they scrub it, which isn’t the case. “It’s not getting dirtier, you’re removing all the color on top,” he says.

 

Take care of your leather upholstery after you clean it, says John Ibbotson, chief automotive services manager at CR. “You should use a good leather cleaner, then a good leather conditioner afterwards,” he says.

 

If your car has fabric upholstery, Kosilla warns against cleaning it with too much water or too much soap. “The goal is not to create too many suds. If you get suds, you’ll have suds forever,” he says. In addition, if you soak through the fabric down to the cushion beneath, it could end up creating a musty smell or encouraging mould growth in the cushions. Instead, Kosilla recommends lightly agitating the fabric with a small amount of water and laundry detergent.

 

Both Stout and Kosilla recommend cleaning all surfaces with a microfiber cloth. That’s because they’re made of fabric that consists of tiny little loops that capture and sweep away dirt and dust particles before they can scratch delicate or shiny plastic surfaces. By comparison, the dirt and debris in your car can stick to even the cleanest paper towels or napkins and scratch surfaces—”like sandpaper,” Kosilla says.

 

Once you’re finished cleaning, don’t forget to wash your hands before and after driving. It’s a good habit to get into even outside of the spread of COVID-19, as it will keep your steering wheel and other frequently touched surfaces in your car from looking dingy.

 

“The number one thing is to clean your hands,” Kosilla says. “You can clean your steering wheel, but if you have dirty hands, you put that dirt back on.”

 

Washing your hands is still one of the best ways to defend yourself against COVID-19, says Thomas.

 

“It is known that coronaviruses can persist on surfaces, but as of right now we still think infections via respiratory transmission are still primarily the main route from person to person,” he says.

 

So there you have it, views that I’ve collated from the UK, US and other countries. The thing is don’t panic but take extra precautions and hopefully, you’ll be safe and virus free. By Graham Hill

Just as I noticed that a lot of our local pot holes had been filled I read, not before time, that the Government has finally taken some action, albeit nothing like enough.

 

The Government has awarded 32 local authorities a share of £93.4 million to repair roads and bridges.

 

A further £900,000 will fund scientists, innovators, academics and tech-focused start-ups to research new ways to future proof the UK’s roads.

 

One of the projects to receive funding for tech projects will see the development of a new AI-powered app to detect potholes in real-time, using mobile phone sensors to measure when cyclists ride over or swerve to avoid them.

 

It is hoped the app will help local authorities to quickly identify when potholes are forming and take quicker action to fill them.

 

Another project known as Shape-Pot will create 3D pothole models to create a fully autonomous repair platform capable of automatic, uniform repairs – accelerating the transport network of the future.

 

Senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool Paolo Paoletti said: “The Shape-Pot project has the potential to change the way roads and their defects are managed, promoting a data-driven approach to management and improving efficiency – making roads safer and more accessible.

 

“Thanks to the T-TRIG funding, the team will create a proof-of-principle autonomous robotic platform to characterise road surface, a first step toward autonomous maintenance of roads.”

 

The Freight Transport Association (FTA) welcomed the investment. Christopher Snelling, head of UK policy at FTA, said: “Businesses within the logistics sector rely on efficient, effective road networks to keep goods moving across the UK, but too often, these operators are forced to travel along damaged, congested roads which increase journey times and can cause costly damage to vehicles.

 

“These businesses are paying the price for an ongoing lack of investment in the road network; the performance of the UK economy has also suffered as a result.”

 

However, he said it was “disappointing” that the funding package fell short of being able to tackle the poor state of roads across the nation.

 

“Taxes on UK road transport are the highest in Europe,” continued Snelling. “HGVs alone pay enough tax to fund more than 90% of the current amount spent on road maintenance in the UK.

 

“More investment is needed urgently and we hope that this is the first step in the creation and completion of a more comprehensive road improvement strategy.” By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News.

An investigation into a fatal crash involving a Tesla Model X being driven on autopilot in Mountain View, Calfornia, has found that the driver was distracted using his mobile phone.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) held a public board meeting on Tuesday ( February 25) during which it determined the probable cause for the fatal March 23, 2018, crash.

 

Based on the findings of its investigation the NTSB issued a total of nine safety recommendations whose recipients include the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, SAE International, Apple and other manufacturers of portable electronic devices.

 

The NTSB also reiterated seven previously issued safety recommendations.

 

The NTSB determined the Tesla autopilot system’s limitations, the driver’s overreliance on the autopilot and the driver’s distraction – likely from a mobile phone game app – caused the crash.

 

It found that the Tesla vehicle’s ineffective monitoring of driver engagement was determined to have contributed to the crash.

 

Systemic problems with the California Department of Transportation’s repair of traffic safety hardware and the California Highway Patrol’s failure to report damage to a crash attenuator led to the Tesla striking a damaged and non-operational crash attenuator, which the NTSB said contributed to the severity of the driver’s injuries.

 

“This tragic crash clearly demonstrates the limitations of advanced driver assistance systems available to consumers today,” said NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt.

 

“There is not a vehicle currently available to US consumers that is self-driving. Period. Every vehicle sold to US consumers still requires the driver to be actively engaged in the driving task, even when advanced driver assistance systems are activated.

 

“If you are selling a car with an advanced driver assistance system, you’re not selling a self-driving car. If you are driving a car with an advanced driver assistance system, you don’t own a self-driving car.”

 

He continued: “In this crash we saw an overreliance on technology, we saw distraction, we saw a lack of policy prohibiting cell phone use while driving, and we saw infrastructure failures that, when combined, led to this tragic loss.

 

“The lessons learned from this investigation are as much about people as they are about the limitations of emerging technologies.

 

“Crashes like this one, and thousands more that happen every year due to distraction, are why ‘Eliminate Distractions’ remains on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements.”

 

The 38-year-old driver of the 2017 Tesla Model X P100D electric vehicle (EV) died from multiple blunt-force injuries after his SUV entered the gore area of the US-101 and State Route 85 exit ramp and struck a damaged and non-operational crash attenuator at a speed of 70.8 mph.

 

The Tesla was then struck by two other vehicles, resulting in the injury of one other person.

 

The Tesla’s high-voltage battery was breached in the collision and a post-crash fire ensued. Witnesses removed the Tesla driver from the vehicle before it was engulfed in flames.

 

The NTSB learned from Tesla’s ‘Carlog’ data (data stored on the non-volatile memory SD card in the media control unit) that during the last 10 seconds prior to impact the Tesla’s autopilot system was activated with the traffic-aware cruise control set at 75 mph.

 

Between six and 10 seconds prior to impact, the SUV was traveling between 64 and 66 mph following another vehicle at a distance of about 83 feet.

 

The Tesla’s lane-keeping assist system (autosteer) initiated a left steering input toward the gore area while the SUV was about 5.9 seconds and about 560 feet from the crash attenuator.

 

No driver-applied steering wheel torque was detected by autosteer at the time of the steering movement and this hands-off steering indication continued up to the point of impact.

 

The Tesla’s cruise control no longer detected a lead vehicle ahead when the SUV was about 3.9 seconds and 375 feet from the attenuator, and the SUV began accelerating from 61.9 mph to the preset cruise speed of 75 mph.

 

The Tesla’s forward collision warning system did not provide an alert and automatic emergency braking did not activate. The SUV driver did not apply the brakes and did not initiate any steering movement to avoid the crash.

 

The driver was an avid gamer and game developer. A review of mobile phone records and data retrieved from his Apple iPhone 8 Plus showed a game application was active and was the frontmost open application on his phone during his trip to work.

 

The driver’s lack of evasive action combined with data indicating his hands were not detected on the steering wheel, is consistent with a person distracted by a portable electronic device.

 

Seven safety issues were identified in the crash investigation:

 

Seven safety issues were identified in the crash investigation:

• Driver Distraction
• Risk Mitigation Pertaining to Monitoring Driver Engagement
• Risk Assessment Pertaining to Operational Design Domain (the operating conditions under which a driving automation system is designed to function)
• Limitations of Collision Avoidance Systems
• Insufficient Federal Oversight of Partial Driving Automation Systems
• Need for Event Data Recording Requirements for Driving Automation Systems
• Highway Infrastructure Issues

To address these safety issues the NTSB made nine safety recommendations that seek:

• Expansion of NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program testing of forward collision avoidance system performance.
• Evaluation of Tesla autopilot- equipped vehicles to determine if the system’s operating limitations, foreseeability of misuse, and ability to operate vehicles outside the intended operational design domain pose an unreasonable risk to safety.
• Collaborative development of standards for driver monitoring systems to minimize driver disengagement, prevent automation complacency and account for foreseeable misuse of the automation.
• Review and revision of distracted driving initiatives to increase employers’ awareness of the need for strong cell phone policies prohibiting portable electronic device use while driving.
• Modification of enforcement strategies for employers who fail to address the hazards of distracted driving.
• Development of a distracted driving lock-out mechanism or application for portable electronic devices that will automatically disable any driver-distracting functions when a vehicle is in motion.
• Development of policy that bans nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving by all employees and contractors driving company vehicles, operating company issued portable electronic devices or when using a portable electronic device to engage in work-related communications.

Lessons learned from the emergency response to the post-crash fire will be incorporated into a separate NTSB report on electric vehicle battery fires. That report is expected to be released in the third quarter of calendar year 2020.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Range Rover Sport was the number one choice for thieves in 2019, jumping from eighth place in the Tracker Most Stolen and Recovered League Table in 2018.

 

It replaces the BMW X5 which topped the chart in 2018 and now sits at number two. This in turn, has pushed the 2018 number two, the Mercedes-Benz C Class, to third place in 2019.

 

Range Rover, BMW and Mercedes-Benz dominate the Tracker league table in 2019.

 

Furthermore, analysis of theft data recorded by Tracker reveals that 92% of the cars it recovered last year were taken without using the keys. This is an increase from 2018’s figure which stood at 88% and a worrying increase of 26% compared with four years ago. The figure in 2016 stood at 66%.

 

“Our data has revealed that keyless car theft continues to rise, with nine out of 10 of the stolen cars we recovered in 2019 taken this way,” explained Clive Wain, head of police liaison for Tracker.

 

“Thieves exploit keyless technology by using sophisticated equipment, which can hijack the car key’s signal from inside an owner’s home and remotely fool the system into unlocking the doors and start the engine. This is commonly known as a relay attack.”

 

To help prevent car owners falling victim to keyless car theft, traditional visual deterrents, such as crook locks and wheel clamps can help deter thieves and are a good investment to make, according to Wain.

 

However, he said: “In the event of a car being stolen, vehicle tracking technology will not only help police close the net on thieves but see a stolen vehicle returned to its rightful owner.”

 

Premium vehicles are frequently stolen to order by organised criminal groups. The cars are often shipped abroad, predominantly to Eastern Europe and North Africa.

 

The most expensive vehicle recovered by Tracker in 2019 was a Range Rover SV Autobiography, valued at £150,000. However, cars at the lower end of the market are still a target, with a VW Polo valued at £575 being the least expensive car recovered.

 

“Thanks to our long-standing working relationship with all UK police forces, 54 suspected thieves were arrested in connection with the vehicles we recovered last year,” continued Wain. “In addition to the vehicles recovered by Tracker, 67 other non-Tracker fitted stolen vehicles were also found as a result.”

 

 

Top Models Stolen & Recovered in 2019

 

1. Range Rover Sport

 

2. BMW X5

 

3. Mercedes-Benz C Class

 

4. Range Rover Vogue

 

5. Land Rover Discovery

 

6. BMW X6

 

7. Range Rover Evoque

 

8. BMW 3 Series

 

9. Range Rover Autobiography

 

10. Mercedes E Class

 

 

Top Models Stolen & Recovered in 2019

 

1. BMW X5

 

2. Mercedes-Benz C Class

 

3. BMW 3 Series

 

4. Mercedes E Class

 

5. BMW 5 Series

 

6. Range Rover Vogue

 

7. Land Rover Discovery

 

8. Range Rover Sport

 

9. Mercedes S Class

 

10. Mercedes GLE

 

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The number of people killed in road accidents where the driver was over the drink drive limit has not dropped since 2010.

 

Provisional figures released by the Department for Transport (DfT) estimate there were 240 such deaths in 2018, exactly the same rate of fatalities ten years ago.

 

The total number of casualties caused by drink driving increased to 8,700 in 2018, up 1% from 2017.

 

The number of accidents where a driver was over the alcohol limit rose by 4% to 5,900 in 2018, compared with the previous year.

 

Road safety charity IAM RoadSmart is calling for the government to introduce a ‘smarter’ package of measures to tackle this important issue.

 

Measures being advocated by IAM RoadSmart include a further lowering of the drink-drive limit in England and Wales to match Scotland, wider use of drink-drive rehabilitation courses and also following the example of Scotland by seizing the vehicles of repeat offenders.

 

Neil Greig, director of policy and research at IAM RoadSmart, said: “Once again progress on reducing the toll of death and injuries from drink-driving has stalled.

 

“There is no one simple answer to reducing these figures, but IAM RoadSmart believe we now need a much smarter package of measures from the government including a lower drink-drive limit to reinforce good behaviour, fast-track of evidential roadside testing machines to release police resources and tailored approaches to help drivers with alcohol problems.

 

“Rehabilitation courses work and we think all those convicted of drink-driving should be sent on one automatically rather than having to opt in.

 

“More use of alcohol interlocks and extra penalties such as vehicle forfeiture, as used in Scotland, could all be part of a more joined-up approach to the problem.”

 

Hunter Abbott, managing director of breathalyser firm AlcoSense, says that nly 42% of drivers involved in an accident in 2018 were breath-tested by police.

 

“This has declined steadily since 2008, when 55% of motorists were breathalysed after a collision,” he said. “Of those who actually were tested following an accident, more than 3,800 were over the limit – at 4.4%, that’s the highest failure rate for 10 years”.

 

The overall number of breath tests is also the lowest on record.

 

Just 320,988 drivers were tested by police at the roadside in 2018, according to Home Office figures – less than half the 670,023 breathalysed in 2009.

 

“Casualties will not reduce until better enforcement is in place, combined with stricter limits and drink driving awareness campaigns”, continued Abbott.

 

“England and Wales have the highest drink drive limit in the developed world, far above the ‘point of intoxication’ when the cognitive effects of alcohol on a person are measurable.

 

“At the English/Welsh limit, despite not contravening the law, research shows you are 13 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than when sober.

 

“We call on the Government to increase the number of road traffic officers, in order to restore roadside breath testing to the levels of a decade ago.

 

“The Home Office should also stop ignoring robust scientific evidence and the advice of road safety experts – the drink drive limit should be reduced from its current dangerously high level.”

 

Abbott is the founder of AlcoSense and a member of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS).

 

Greig concluded: “Drink-drivers are simply not getting the message, and these figures will not improve until policy changes.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Flett 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