The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

One in four drivers have had their car damaged by a speedhump or pothole, according to new research by Insurethegap.com.

 

In urban areas the damage rate was even higher, with one in three of those surveyed stating that their car had suffered damage.

 

Ben Wooltorton, COO at InsuretheGap.com, said, “Damage to cars caused by speedhumps and potholes, in particular, is becoming a big problem as councils struggle with the cost of repairing them. This cold snap will see more potholes and, as we can see from the research, repairs can run into hundreds of pounds. It really is worth avoiding them if possible, and going a different way if the road is particularly bad.”

 

More than a quarter (26%) said the average cost of repairing the damage ranged from £51 to £100. A third (35%) paid between £101 and £250 to rectify damage and 8% said it cost more than £250.

 

Two fifths (39%) of affected drivers complained to the council about the potholes or speedhumps and more than half of them (55%) said their compliant was ignored, but 39% said action was taken as a result. One in ten (10%) went so far as to send their bill to the council.

 

A fifth (21%) said they had considered complaining “but didn’t see the point as nothing would change”, and 12% complained to Highways England/Transport Scotland/Traffic Wales or the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure.

 

Instead of complaining, one in six (17%) now take a longer route to avoid potholes.

 

In 2017 – 2019, more than 905,000 potholes were reported on UK roads according to Confused.com.

 

The Transport Select Committee’s latest report, Local roads funding and maintenance: filling the gap, addresses ‘the extreme state of disrepair of the English local road network’. It identifies a drop in local government revenue funding of around 25% since 2010, resulting in funds for local roads no longer being ring-fenced. As a result ‘cash-strapped authorities have diverted their highways and transport budgets to fund core services’.

 

The findings state that a deteriorating local road network undermines local economic performance, results in direct costs to taxpayers, damages vehicles and causes injuries to passengers, ‘particularly those with existing medical conditions’. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

Bluelight driver training is under the spotlight after fatalities during police pursuits reached a 10-year high, according to the latest statistics from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

 

While many fleets embrace on-the-road and classroom training to improve employee skills behind the wheel, for bluelight drivers it is an essential and mandatory part of the job.

 

The latest IOPC report on deaths as a result of police contact show there were 42 road traffic fatalities, an increase of 13 on last year and the highest figure in the past decade.

 

Of those, 30 deaths were from police pursuit-related incidents, also an increase of 13 from last year.

 

There were also five fatalities resulting from emergency response incidents, but this was a decrease of three compared with last year. the balance of the deaths – seven – were attributed to “other police traffic activity”.

 

The IOPC statistics show the majority of those that died were young drivers, with 22 deaths between the ages of 18 and 30. It said part of the increase can be explained by a rise in occupants per vehicle, compared with last year.

 

The statistics are shown as a national picture and are not broken down by police force, so it is not possible to identify particular regions in the UK that have higher casualty rates as a result of police pursuits.

 

The number of days of driver training for a police response vehicle can range from four to eight weeks.

 

An officer has to retrain or attend a refresher course if they have not used their standard/response or advanced driver training within a 12-month period.

 

Phill Matthews, Police Federation of England and Wales’ lead on conduct and performance, said police last year carried out at least 13,000 pursuits and eight million response drives.

 

Matthews said: “Therefore, the IOPC figures represent a tiny proportion, with the majority of drives being safely completed; reflecting just how high the standard of police driver training is.

 

“Not to mention soaring crime figures and increasing road use which means the demand placed on our officers using their driving skills and training is peaking.”

 

He said forces, along with the College of Policing, will continue to deliver and develop training to continue to best protect the public.

 

New test for police drivers

 

The Government announced in May this year that it would be introducing a new legislative test to assess the standard of driving for police officers.

 

The new police driving legislation will compare the standard of driving for an officer against that of a “careful, competent and suitably trained police driver in the same role”, rather than use the existing test which compares driving against a standard qualified driver who would not normally be involved in police action.

 

Michael Lockwood, IOPC director, said: “The increase in pursuit-related deaths this year points to a continued need for ongoing scrutiny of this area of policing.

 

“Police drivers need to be able to pursue suspects and respond quickly to emergency calls as part of their duty, but it’s not without risk.

 

“This includes risks not only for the police and the driver of any pursued vehicle, but for passengers, bystanders and other road users. Pursued drivers bear responsibility for their own actions, but police officers should also take into account the risks to the public and only undertake a pursuit where it is safe to do so, and where authorised.”

 

Lockwood said police officers who are appropriately trained and skilled should be able to respond to an emergency without fear that they will face unfair consequences.

 

But he added that there needs to be a balance ensuring that any change to legislation does not have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety or undermine the ability to hold the police to account effectively.

 

The Government has also decided to make it clear that police officers should not be regarded as being accountable for the driving of a suspected criminal who is attempting to avoid arrest by driving in a dangerous manner, provided the pursuit is justified and proportionate.

 

It is also looking to review the existing emergency service exemptions to traffic law to ensure they remain fit for purpose.

 

In addition, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) is updating its guidance on “tactical contact” to differentiate the approach used on vehicles compared with motorcycle/moped pursuits.

 

Whenever there is a fatality or life-changing injury in relation to a road traffic incident (RTI), it is automatically referred to the IOPC, which conducts its own investigation.

 

This will include examining the vehicles involved, as well as interviewing the officers.

 

The IOPC is looking at training its own officers to the same standards as the police to help give them hands-on experience of techniques used during pursuits.

 

If there are suspected criminal charges against a police officer, these are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

 

If there are misconduct or gross misconduct concerns, these recommendations are then given to the respective police force.

 

Discipline for misconduct is handled by the individual police force and this can range from dismissal in cases of gross misconduct and repeated formal warnings, to driver retraining or advice on how they should follow the procedural police pursuit guidelines correctly.

 

The IOPC spokesman told Fleet News: “There is less than a handful of cases a year where police officers are charged with a criminal offence, or with misconduct or gross misconduct as a result of a fatality from an RTI.

 

“In the rare cases where this happens it’s usually because an officer continues a pursuit after they have been told to abandon, or if an officer carries out a pursuit when they have not had the correct training, or if an officer carries out a pursuit that has not had formal authorisation.”

 

The types of police driver training

 

The National Roads Policing and Police Driving Learning Programme (RPPDLP) sets out national learning standards for police driving.

 

There are three levels of police driver training that all officers have to take if they drive as part of their job – basic, standard/response and advanced.

 

In addition to these, there are also specialist police vehicles and roles that are set out in the RPPDLP.

 

Basic training is provided to all officers and staff with a full DVLA driving licence that have a need to drive official vehicles and is a one-day assessment.

 

Standard/response training is given to officers to allow them to respond safely to incidents requiring the use of legal exemptions, such as exceeding speed limits and running red lights, and takes two-to-four weeks to complete.

 

A standard/response driver is permitted to drive low to intermediate performance vehicles but is not expected to use unmarked police vehicles in a pursuit situation.

 

Advanced training clears officers to drive high performance vehicles operationally and is a further four-week course and assessment, in addition to the standard/response training.

 

The National Police Chiefs’ Council does not lead on training and so the NPCC deferred to the College of Policing to say what part it plays with driver training.

 

According to official College of Policing guidance, a police driver is deemed to be in pursuit when a driver/motorcyclist indicates they have no intention of stopping.

 

When a situation falls within the definition of a pursuit, officers need to decide whether a pursuit is justified, proportionate and conforms to the principle of least intrusion.

 

A spokesperson for the College of Policing said: “The police driver training strategy must always seek to promote public confidence in the way in which the police fleet is used.

 

“Where driving standards fall below the accepted principles it is incumbent on the force to identify, review and act proportionately in any post-collision investigation and/or intervention.”

 

The spokesperson said all driver training leads are expected to be cognisant of emerging police collision/incident reviews following internal investigations, court proceedings, coroner’s rulings, or recommendations made following IOPC reviews.

 

The college said: “It is important that police drivers are able to dynamically self-assess their actions and performance.

 

“This helps them to meet the changing circumstances and pressures they face in their decisions and actions, especially when driving to incidents, working extended hours or during pursuit situations.”

 

Safety lesson for all fleet operators

 

Lisa Dorn, associate professor of driver behaviour at Cranfield University and research director for DriverMetrics, recently contributed to a Brake report on engaging fleet managers on safety and training.

 

She said no matter what the profession, those driving for work can benefit from advanced driver training to influence safety and behaviour behind the wheel.

 

Bluelight drivers are under increased pressure while driving, but non-emergency fleets face one-in-three road deaths in the UK involving somebody who drives for work.

 

Dorn said: “Fleets should carry out an in-depth evaluation of driver training procedures to determine how effective their current training programmes are and whether they encourage positive or negative driver behaviour.”

 

IOPC investigations into RTIs

 

While the number of deaths related to police pursuits has increased, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) reiterated that the vast majority of these incidences were not related to police wrongdoing.

 

The IOPC (formerly the IPCC – Independent Police Complaints Commission) examined its data in relation to cases over a five-and-a-half-year period that had a road traffic incident factor.

 

Between April 1, 2012 and September 30, 2017, the IPCC received more than 1,600 RTI referrals.

 

The majority (68%) of them were returned for local investigation. A relatively small proportion, 251 (15%) were independently investigated and 97 were fully investigated.

 

The IOPC categorised these investigations using the same criteria as the IPCC statistics on annual deaths during or following police contact.

 

The table above sets out the number of independent investigations in which police officers were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the prosecutorial outcomes arising.

 

Following referral to the CPS, just two officers were prosecuted in relation to pursuits. No officers were convicted.

 

What fleets can learn from the bluelight approach to driver training

 

“While any number of road fatalities is too many, it is first important to note that the number of pursuit-related fatalities quoted in the IOPC report represents a very small proportion of police pursuits.

 

They should, of course, be viewed in the context of the high-risk scenarios encountered in law enforcement activity. By and large, I think the public have a high level of confidence in the effectiveness and safety of police officers in their driving, and accept that high-speed pursuit is often a necessary part of their duty.

 

Collisions occurring during police pursuits, especially those resulting in death or injury, always gain media attention, and police are keen to reassure the public that every care has been taken to minimise risk.

 

Acknowledgement of the IOPC data, along with analysis of the circumstances of each incident, is an important part of the ongoing development of police driver training, and they are to be applauded for taking this information on board when setting benchmarks for driving standards.

 

Clearly, police and other emergency service drivers are required to deal with pressures far beyond those experienced by the average motorist, but those responsible for fleets of civilian business drivers could, nevertheless, learn a thing or two from this approach to training development.

 

It is well publicised that around a third of UK road fatalities involves a driver on a work journey, and yet few employers stop to consider such statistics, or to truly analyse the pressures their own drivers are subjected to on a daily basis. That’s not to say that good intentions are not there. For example, the increasing adoption of telematics by business fleets is an indication that driver behaviour is an area of focus.

 

The emergency services were among the first largescale adopters of vehicle telematics, and the data it yields has proven invaluable in the analysis of the circumstances surrounding certain incidents, helping to prove responsibility.

 

Some businesses may be motivated to adopt telematics in the belief that drivers’ behaviour will improve if they know they are being monitored. However, as is the case with speeding or mobile phone use by drivers, unless penalties or interventions are actually enforced, drivers succumb to complacency and fail to improve.

 

More crucially, telematics data produces an audit trail which could lead to serious consequences for an employer that had access to information about a driver’s history of risky behaviour, but failed to intervene.

 

In our experience at IAM RoadSmart, many businesses do not acknowledge the potential for this kind of accountability, lack the ability to interpret telematics data correctly, or are unaware of the highly effective training interventions that are available for business drivers.

 

Assessment of driver risk, ongoing evaluation of training procedures and development of robust fleet policies are all essential in maximising safety and, with the growing numbers of business drivers, Government policymakers are increasingly acknowledging the role that employers must play in the wider picture of UK road safety. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

The car insurance industry is working with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to close database gaps that allow written-offs cars to pass history checks with a clean bill of health.

 

In March this year, we discovered that the crash-damaged history of a number of cars sold at salvage auction as Cat S and Cat N write-offs was not being detected by provenance checks run by HPI and Experian.

 

Now the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) says it is working with the DVLA, which holds a more comprehensive database of write-offs, to tackle this issue. The MIB admits it didn’t know the true scale of the problem – which affects tens of thousands of vehicles a year – until Auto Express highlighted the problem.

 

The issue relates to a database called the Motor Insurance Anti Fraud and Theft Register (MIAFTR), which is run by the MIB. It’s used by HPI and Experian to determine if a car has been written off.

 

During the 2016/17 and 2017/18 financial years, however, 168,000 fewer written-off vehicles were put on MIAFTR compared with the DVLA’s database of repairable write-offs. It is unlikely these vehicles, if put back on the road, would be detected as such by provenance checks.

 

“We knew there were gaps. But no, we didn’t understand the true scale of it”, Ben Fletcher, the MIB’s chief customer officer, told Auto Express. “Since the article ran, and as part of our general work, we have engaged with the DVLA and we are actively talking to them about what the size of the gap is between the two [databases], and is there an opportunity to close that gap by sharing information?” He said discussions with the DVLA are in “early stages” but have been ongoing “for the last couple of months”.

 

Fletcher explained that MIAFTR “was set up a long time ago by insurers… to share information about the history of the cars they were insuring. At some part in its history… the likes of HPI and Experian said ‘Can we have access to this data? Because this data is one part of a component that will help for our vehicle provenance checks’: It’s being used to help provide a product, but MIAFTR was never designed to be a definitive register of every vehicle which has been damaged beyond repair.”

 

The MIB confirmed HPI and Experian are the only two provenance companies with access to MIAFTR, with other history-checkers using data provided by these two firms.

 

Fletcher added: “The people providing the vehicle provenance checks understand the issues. They provide guarantees in the circumstances where there is a problem.”

 

How do these gaps appear?

 

There are a number of reasons for vehicles not to be on MIAFTR. Cars with third-party cover that aren’t declared ‘total losses’ can be missing, as can cars written off using paper records. The MIB also says fleet operators with large excesses may buy a new car rather than claim a total loss; these cars can also be missing. If such a vehicle is subsequently repaired, provenance checks may not detect its true history.

 

What do the other organisations say?

DVLA: It confirmed discussions with the MIB over these issues. We asked why the organisation can’t simply open its write-off database to third-party companies like HPI and Experian, given that private parking firms can access other DVLA datasets. The organisation simply said there are “no plans” to do this.

 

HPI: It “works tirelessly to improve the coverage and accuracy of its data and is carrying out increasingly more checks year on year, and as such is identifying a growing number of vehicles hitting the register as write-offs”. The firm highlighted that buyers are protected by a guarantee of up to £30,000 if it supplies inaccurate or incomplete information; however, this guarantee is capped at £15,000 if it’s discovered that a vehicle has been written-off.

 

Experian: Its position on the subject hasn’t changed since March, when the firm said it “will continue to work with our data and insurance industry partners” to “establish the circumstances” behind the vehicles highlighted in our article.

 

Crashed cars written-off by insurers are being repaired and sold to unsuspecting motorists

Cars that have been deemed insurance write-offs following serious accidents are passing vehicle history checks with a clean bill of health and being sold to unsuspecting motorists, Auto Express can exclusively reveal.

 

Vehicle history checks are relied on by countless buyers every year to reveal whether a car is subject to outstanding finance, has mileage irregularities, has been stolen, has previously been scrapped or has been deemed an insurance write-off.

 

But the damaged cars you see in these photographs were sold at a salvage auction, having been classified as ‘Cat S’ – meaning they were written off after sustaining serious, structural accident damage, and were only allowed back on the road after having been properly repaired.

 

Despite this, all of these models passed the vehicle history checks offered by both HPI and Experian AutoCheck, and were being marketed to consumers as never having been written off.

 

We found 10 cars that had been sold at a salvage auction as declared Cat S write-offs, making a note of the VIN plates displayed in the salvage listings. We paid for HPI and Experian AutoCheck history checks, cross-referencing VINs and registration plates with the reports. Some of the cars generated alerts for outstanding finance or mileage discrepancies, but not one check from either HPI or Experian flagged any of these cars as an insurance write-off.

 

Auto Express was alerted to this issue by a reader who uncovered inconsistencies with history-checking companies after buying a used car he discovered had previously been sold via a salvage auction. As well as a conventional history check, the reader used a company called www.vcheck.uk, which crosschecks a car’s write-off status against salvage auction records.

 

After we learned of this problem, we contacted vcheck and were provided with a number of cars that had raised similar concerns.

 

By Graham Hill thanks to Auto Express

Company car drivers and fleet managers are being warned that criminals are using WhatsApp groups to plan and execute car thefts, according to vehicle protection specialists at AX.

 

According to the report, criminals create and share ‘shopping lists’ of makes and models so that vehicles can be stolen to order. AX, a provider of intelligent vehicle protection and management technologies for the automotive and insurance industries, says that “fuelled by encrypted social media platforms, the wave of thefts has been intensified by the vulnerability of ‘keyless’ systems which criminals are able to exploit using key signal amplifiers and decoders costing thousands”.

 

Home Office figures show the number of vehicles stolen in Britain has almost doubled in the last five years. In 2017-18, nearly 112,000 cars were taken illegally, up from 75,308 in the 2013-14 financial year.

 

Neil Thomas, AX director of investigative services, said: “The highly organised criminal networks are constantly looking for more secure ways to carry on their ‘businesses’ online and use social media with encrypted messaging capabilities or even online games to covertly communicate with each other.

 

“The sheer volume of thefts is practically a car theft epidemic and is enabling criminals to purchase costly technology which then fuels even more car crime.

 

“The thieves who take the initial risk get the cash payment, then the buyer, who now has a tracker-free car can then take their time to strip it, clone it or export it. This is where the profit is, especially in terms of the parts which can amount to much more than the complete vehicle.”

 

AX states that typically, criminals – or whole gangs in some cases – mobilise on social media where they agree their preferred targets, pricing and buyer before preparing bogus number-plates from similar vehicles to rapidly clone vehicles. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News.

I came across a piece that explained some things to be wary of as an employer but is also useful if you drive a car on business even though you may be self employed or use your own car but are paid a car allowance or mileage.

 

The Christmas work party season will soon be with us! It is therefore worthwhile taking the following into account. If you as an employer are putting on a Christmas party, whether on your premises or at an outside location then you have responsibilities under employment and health and safety laws.

 

And as an employee you need to be aware of your responsibilities should you be attending a works party.

 

The company should have the relevant policies in place and staff handbooks should be up to date with the issues below covered. This helps to avoid any misunderstandings in the future as employees will be aware of the company expectations.

 

Alcohol and Drugs

 

If the employees have to drive a vehicle, they cannot be over the legal limit, including the following morning. As an employer, you are liable for their actions when they are acting in the course of their employment so be mindful of employees who could potentially be over the limit the next morning.

 

If a majority of employees are likely to consume alcohol, it would be wise to arrange transport.

 

Remember some people want a soft drink rather than alcohol and for some it’s a necessity on religious grounds or due to the fact they are the designated driver.

 

Watch for drugs use.  It is an offence to knowingly permit (or ignore) the use/supply of drugs.

 

Whilst it may be an office Christmas party, on or off company premises, it is still deemed as a working environment. Employees telling one another how they really feel about one another in ‘banter’ or playing pranks could be misconstrued.

 

Any grievance, should be dealt with. This extends to the world of social media, any confession or inappropriate posts will still have to be dealt with accordingly.

 

Any failures of employees to attend work the next day is a disciplinary offence and should be made clear to those attending. This should be applied to all employees to ensure no discrimination claims arise. If a manager doesn’t turn up with no action but a subordinate staff member is disciplined – it could end up in a tribunal.

 

It is a good idea to designate certain people in management/supervisory roles to oversee the level of behaviour at parties and make sure that things don’t get out of hand.  Remember that your involvement in putting on the party can lead to claims for discrimination, harassment, assault which the company could be liable for.

 

Some religions or faiths don’t recognise Christmas since it is a Christian holiday.  Make it clear that attendance at a party is entirely voluntary. Whilst it’s important that everyone enjoys themselves – it’s a Christmas party after all, you don’t want to find yourselef out of a job the following day or week for telling your boss or an employee what you think of them. By Graham Hill

The number of speeding tickets issued to UK motorists have reached a record level, exceeding 2.1 million in 2018.

 

Figures released by the Home Office reveal that 85% of all motoring offences reported last year were for speeding (2,105,409), which was up by one percentage point on 2017.

 

The year-on-year statistics show that speed limit offences have continued to increase since 2011.

 

Edmund King, president at the AA, said: “Speed kills, so drivers should remember that lower limits on residential roads and are there for a very important reason.

 

“The next Prime Minister can become a champion of road safety, by reversing the cut to cops in cars who not only act as a deterrent, but also catch and penalise those with a heavy right foot.”

 

The latest data on the UK’s fixed penalty notice (FPN) statistics cover offences such as speeding and others such as using a handheld mobile device whilst driving.

 

Punishments can include fines, speed awareness courses and court action.

 

Of all the speeding tickets issued, 97% were captured by speed cameras.

 

The rise in such FPNs has led to some calling for increased speeding limits, but RAC head of roads policy, Nicholas Lyes, earlier this year, said: “Given that inappropriate speed is still a major factor in collisions, it’s unlikely many motorways in the UK are suited to an 80mph limit.

 

“We know a large proportion of drivers already regularly exceed the 70mph limit so there is a danger increasing it would send out the wrong message.”

 

Despite the FPNs rising for speeding offences, there has been a decrease for mobile phone usage.

 

In 2018, 38,600 FPNs were issued to those who offended, which is a drastic reduction on the 53,000 issued during 2017.

 

King, however, believes the reduction is not a result of drivers following rules and regulations, but a sign that a lack of police presence is to blame.

 

He continued “We must not be complacent as often drivers are still spotted using phones at the wheel.

 

“Only a fifth of drivers say there is a visible police presence on their local roads, so a more prominent presence would help to deter the use of hand-held mobiles and texting at the wheel.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Government will close a legal loophole that allows drivers to escape prosecution for hand-held mobile phone use while behind the wheel.

 

Under the current rules drivers are not permitted to use a hand-held mobile phone to call or text, but drivers have evaded prosecution for filming or taking photos while driving as it is not classed as ‘interactive communication’.

 

The revised legislation will mean any driver caught texting, taking photos, browsing the internet or scrolling through a playlist while behind the wheel will be prosecuted for using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.

 

This is in response to the Transport Committee’s recommendation that the law be clarified to cover all hand-held usage, irrespective of whether this involves sending or receiving data.

 

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said he will urgently take forward a review to tighten up the existing law preventing hand-held mobile use while driving: “We recognise that staying in touch with the world while travelling is an essential part of modern day life but we are also committed to making our roads safe.

 

“Drivers who use a hand-held mobile phone are hindering their ability to spot hazards and react in time – putting people’s lives at risk.

 

“We welcome the Transport Select Committee’s report, and share their drive to make our roads even safer which is why this review will look to tighten up the existing law to bring it into the 21st century, preventing reckless driving and reduce accidents on our roads.”

 

The Government has previously given no indication it intended to change mobile phone laws after a driver won his case in the High Court.

 

Nick Lloyd, head of Road Safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said: “Drivers who use their phones are up to four times more likely to crash, RoSPA highlighted this loophole in the summer and is delighted that such prompt action is being taken to ensure that all hand-held mobile phone use is to be prohibited, making our roads safer for all.”

 

While Ministers have also announced that they will consider the current penalties in place for hand-held mobile phone use, there are no plans to ban hands-free phone use.

 

Joshua Harris, director of campaigns for Brake, added: “Far too many people still use their phone behind the wheel, yet it should be as unacceptable as drink driving, with research showing that reaction times whilst texting are double those of drink-drivers. We will continue to press the future new Government for further action to tackle the menace of mobile phone use behind the wheel.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

As someone who was diagnosed type 2 diabetes last year I was concerned about my driving licence. However, following a change to diet and medication my glucose reading dropped from a high reading of over 9.0 to 5.2 which is now at a normal level. Glad I was checked when I was.

 

The following report reveals licence revocations for all sorts of conditions.

 

DIABETES medical revocations have hit a five-year low as it was revealed the DVLA take away less driving licences from sufferers compared to previous years. Diabetes patients taking insulin saw just 1,713 driving licences revoked on medical grounds in a massive fall of almost 800 on 2017 figures which stood just shy of 2,500.

 

The figure is considerably lower than statistics over the last five years which has consistently put diabetes revocations between 2,400 and 2,600 each year.

 

Diabetes sufferers on tablets also saw a massive fall in medical revocations in 2018 as figures revealed a third consecutive yearly fall to 144, down from 209.

 

Diabetes patients driving a bus or lorry also saw a slight reduction in driving licence revocations compared to last year to hit 962.

 

The figure is down on the 973 medical revocations in this category in 2017 but is slightly higher than pre-2016 numbers.

The data was released by the DVLA through a Freedom of Information Act request which revealed the most common reasons why driving licences are revoked on medical advice.

 

The data showed dementia was the most popular reason why licences were revoked for car drivers.

 

A massive 7,767 dementia sufferers saw their licenses taken away on medical grounds last year in a new five-year high.

 

Numbers have crept up considerably over the last half a decade to increase by over 3,000 in a staggering 64.7 percent increase.

 

Speaking on the findings, a DVLA spokesman told Express.co.uk: “By law, all drivers must ensure that they are medically fit to drive and must notify us of the onset or worsening of a medical condition that could affect this.

 

“Where we are notified of a medical condition that may affect driving, the driver may be referred for further assessment. We then make an evidence-based decision on whether the driver can retain their licence.

 

“If anyone has concerns whether a medical condition could affect their ability to drive, we would advise they speak to their doctor or a medical professional involved in their care.”

 

Other highly targeted illnesses include epilepsy whose sufferers have seen more than 5,700 medical revocations in 2018.  By Graham Hill With Thanks To The Express

MOTORISTS could be fined £5,000 if they drive with a pet in the car under strict guidelines on road safety.

 

The Highway Code says drivers who are behind the wheel of a car with a pet which is not safely secured could be breaking dangerous driving offences. Having a pet in the car could also invalidate your car insurance even if they were not directly involved in causing the crash.

 

Drivers are urged to consider investing in dog crates or safety harnesses to avoid authorities forcing the fines on distracted motorists.

 

The strict clause is seen in Rule 57 if the Highway Code which states animals must be suitably restrained when you are driving.

 

The code states: “When in a vehicle make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves if you stop quickly.”

 

“A seat belt harness, pet carrier, dog cage or dog guard are ways of restraining animals in cars”.

 

Police chiefs warn that having a pet safely stored is not a legal requirement and failure to comply will not necessarily lead to an instant prosecution.

 

The Highway Code says drivers who are behind the wheel of a car with a pet which is not safely secured could be breaking dangerous driving offences. Having a pet in the car could also invalidate your car insurance even if they were not directly involved in causing the crash.

 

Drivers are urged to consider investing in dog crates or safety harnesses to avoid authorities forcing the fines on distracted motorists.

 

The strict clause is seen in Rule 57 if the Highway Code which states animals must be suitably restrained when you are driving.

 

The code states: “When in a vehicle make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves if you stop quickly.”

 

“A seat belt harness, pet carrier, dog cage or dog guard are ways of restraining animals in cars”.

 

Police chiefs warn that having a pet safely stored is not a legal requirement and failure to comply will not necessarily lead to an instant prosecution.

 

Although not following the Highway Code may be used in court proceedings and could see motorists still forced to pay a fine.

 

Police could issue up to a £1,000 fine for driving without proper control if authorities feel a driver is being easily distracted.

 

If a case goes to court, drivers could see themselves paying the top fine of £5,000 and facing up to nine penalty points on a driving licence.

 

A recent US study revealed driving with an unrestrained pet in the vehicle leads to drivers getting more stressed and more distracted.

 

The Volvo USA and Harris Poll research highlighted 649 unsafe driving behaviours while a dog was unrestrained, compared to 274 when they were.

 

Distractions were also up on drivers with an unrestrained dog in the vehicle as 3h 39 min was spent not focusing completely on the road ahead.

 

Shockingly, having a loose animal in the boot of a vehicle could allow insurers to invalidate your policy for careless driving.

 

MoneySuperMarket spokeswoman Rachel Wait said: “While driving with your pet in your car – whether in the boot or on a seat – might seem like a harmless way of getting from A to B, the truth is you can risk invalidating your car insurance.

 

“If you’re in a prang with an unrestrained pet in your car, insurers may use it against you – regardless of whether it was as a direct result of the animal itself – so it’s worth being on the safe side and making sure ‘man’s best friend’ is properly restrained.”

 

A recent study by Conused.com showed more than half of pet-owning drivers do not know that having a pet in a car can also invalidate an insurance policy.

 

One in ten drivers had an accident when travelling in a car with a pet, or had known someone who had suffered one.

 

Amanda Stretton, Motoring Editor at Confused.com said: “Many drivers will be joined by four-legged companions as they set off on trips across the UK.

 

“But drivers must restrain their dogs properly, or they could receive fines up to £5,000

 

“Driving with an unprotected pet can also invalidate your car insurance, meaning having to personally payout for repairs in the event of a claim.”

 

To get around the issue, Confused.com have advised drivers to consider using a dog crate to safely transport an animal on a car journey.

 

Drivers should also consider purchasing a safety harness for their animal to keep it from excessively moving around during a trip.

 

Motorists on long-distance journeys should stop every few hours when travelling with an animal to allow their pet to stretch their legs and have a drink.

 

Drivers are also urged to carry water for animals during long car journeys and to never leave pets in a vehicle during warm temperatures.  By Graham Hill With Thanks To The Express

FROST has swept across parts of the UK this morning as the cold weather makes its mark on cars across the nation. Ice could take a while to naturally melt from a vehicle and motorists will need to make sure their windscreens are clear before setting off.

 

Frost and ice-cold conditions can freeze a windscreen and make it impossible to see the road. Motorists can clear the frost from the front of their cars with a series of simple solutions that will not cause damage.

 

However, using certain household tools could see your windscreen destroyed if proper care is not taken.

 

Scraping off frost with a credit card or putting boiling water on top can crack or scratch a windscreen and should be avoided.

 

De-icer

 

Motorists could instead use a special de-icer tool that picks the frost off a windscreen without doing any damage.

 

These tools can be picked up from many local supermarkets and vehicle garages and can be easily used to great effect.

 

Sprays

 

Special de-icer sprays can be applied to a car windscreen to prevent it from icing over in cold conditions.

 

The sprays can often be applied the evening before you are scheduled to make a journey and prevents a vehicle’s windscreen from completely freezing.

 

 

The sprays claim you will wake up the next morning with a clear windscreen and save valuable minutes picking the freezing ice off a car directly.

 

Water 

 

Although pouring boiling water over a windscreen is not advised, lukewarm water should not damage a vehicle and can clear the worst of the icy conditions.

 

Splashing some over the windscreen should make the ice soften and melt which can then be easily cleared by a hand or cloth.

 

If you are in a rush, melted and slushy ice can even be cleared by windscreen wipers before you set off.

 

Engine 

 

Turning on an engine and putting the heating on will warm up your windscreen as well as a car’s interior.

 

This will make your vehicle warm and comfortable for any early morning journeys and should clear all the frost off a windscreen quickly and efficiently.

 

However, motorists are urged to never leave their car unattended when they have turned the engine on to heat a car.

 

The engine will be running and leaving a car unattended could lead to thieves targeting a vehicle and potentially steaking it from your drive.

 

The Central Motorway Police Group revealed unattended cars left running were taken once every five minutes.

 

The crime has even been given its unique name, frosting, due to the regularity of offences in winter months.

 

Snow

 

It’s not just a frosty windscreen that needs to be cleared before heading off on a journey.

 

Experts urge drivers to check snow has not lodged into their front grille as this can lead to overheating.

 

If hot air cannot escape from the engine a car can quickly start to overheat. The front grille must be clear of snow or obstruction before heading off for safety reasons.

 

Prevent frost 

 

Frost can be prevented even before a cold patch has struck with some simple measures.

 

Placing a towel over a windscreen will prevent much of the ice forming on a windscreen and will shave time off cleaning a vehicle in the morning.

 

Rubbing a raw onion over a windscreen in the evening before cold weather can prevent frost from forming on the glass, while motorists can also use vinegar or alcohol to avoid a frost build-up.

 

Side mirrors can be covered with plastic carrier bags the night beforehand to prevent frost from impairing vision.

 

Windscreen wipers can be gently rubbed in alcohol to stop them freezing over and sticking to the window. By Graham Hill With Thanks To The Express