The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

New route optimisation technology for fleets operating in urban areas, based on the behaviour of ants, has been developed by university researchers.

Computer scientists, at the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences at Aston University in Birmingham, say it could help fleets halve their emissions, while helping towns and cities meet clean air targets.

The researchers based their computer modelling algorithm on the way ants forage for food to schedule tasks to vehicles in a fleet and optimise their routes.

Developed under the Think Beyond Data initiative, part-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the research team used a technique known as ‘meta-heuristic technology’.

The method mimics how colonies of ants solve problems and improves upon their existing behaviours. For example, each ant keeps a record of the best solution it has individually found and passes on this knowledge to other ants. This ‘best practice’ then permeates through-out the colony, updating its store of know-how in a way comparable to computer algorithms.

The researchers further developed the technique by creating even ‘smarter’ ant algorithms by reducing the amount of decisions they make such that they can solve city-scale fleet routing problems. 

Dr Darren Chitty, lead researcher at Aston University, explained: “Algorithms based on the foraging behaviour of ants have long been used to solve vehicle routing problems, but now we have found how to scale these up to city-size fleets operating over several weeks in much less time than before.

“It means much larger fleet optimisation problems can be tackled within reasonable timescales using software a user can put on their laptop.”

The route optimisation technology was tested on several Birmingham companies that operate fleets of vehicles to help them minimise their road usage.

Tests with the maintenance company comprised of up to 45 vehicles and 437 customer jobs over a six-week period.

They observed savings of more than 50% over the company’s original time spent on the road. This enabled the maintenance company to make equivalent savings in their fuel costs, boost profit margins, while cutting vehicle emissions in half, said researchers.

Dr Chitty said: “We feel that while Clean Air Zones will improve air quality for some residents, there could be better ways to tackle the health and environmental problems caused by emissions. Instead of taxing commercial vehicles to enter these zones, our research can act as an incentive to companies as they will not only reduce emissions but also save money.

“If all companies in a city operated with this technology, then emissions from these vehicles – which are some of the most polluting – could be significantly reduced, improving air quality for all concerned.”

Many fleets already employ telematics and tracking software to optimise route planning and improve driver behaviour, but these results suggest the scope for cost savings and improved environmental performance.

For example, the scientists were able to reduce CO2 emissions by 4.25 kg per van per day and reduce more harmful emissions such as nitrous oxide by 98-grams per van per day from a fleet of vehicles tested in Birmingham.

The improved schedules were able to service all the required customer demand but with fewer vehicles. This came as a direct result of better routing, saving time for the fleet, but also taking some vehicles off the road altogether, reducing traffic and congestion, said the researchers.

They are now looking to roll out the technology further by testing the system with different types of vehicle fleets such as larger vans or HGVs, as well as larger fleets of vehicles.

The team will continue to approach other companies to use as a testbed for the technology as the project is funded for another two years.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Government is being warned a ‘no deal’ Brexit could impact vehicle costs and prove fatal to the wider UK automotive sector.

A recent Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) survey showed one-in-three automotive employees was still on furlough, with up to one-in-six jobs at risk.

The impact of the coronavirus crisis is being felt across the sector, but jobs could also be threatened by the prospect of a ‘bare bones’ or no-deal Brexit, says the UK automotive trade body.

If the EU and UK do not agree a deal by the end of the year, the UK will leave the EU’s single market and the customs union without any agreement on future access from January 1, 2021.

The SMMT wants a full, zero-tariff deal in place by the end of the transition period to give businesses on both sides the chance to prepare.

Chief executive Mike Hawes said: “Before Covid-19, we expected to produce 1.3 million vehicles this year; the pandemic means we’re already looking at scarcely 900,000.

“A ‘no deal’ Brexit would wreak further long-term damage on the sector. Tariffs would add cost, custom duties and complexity, which would disrupt supply.”

The SMMT suggests a ‘no deal’ scenario could see UK vehicle volumes falling below 850,000 by 2025 – the lowest level since 1953. This would mean a £40 billion cut in revenues, on top of the £33.5bn cost of Covid-19 production losses over the period for UK automotive.

“The industry cannot withstand the shock of a hard Brexit,” explained Hawes.

“Covid-19 has consumed every inch of capability and capacity. There is not the resource, the time nor the clarity to prepare.”

Almost all countries in the world are part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which regulates international trade. Should the UK leave the EU without a deal, its trade with the EU will be governed by WTO rules.

When joining the WTO, each country negotiates the maximum tariffs it can set on various types of goods. The tariff charged by the EU on imported cars is 10%.

Leaving without a deal would mean UK-built cars facing a 10% tariff cost and vice versa, says the SMMT’s annual UK Automotive Trade Report.

Tariffs would result in a price increase of almost £3,000 on the average UK exported car to the EU, a £2,000 price increase on UK vans exported to the EU and a price increase of £1,800 on cars and vans imported from the EU, if fully passed on to UK consumers.

The report adds that additional customs duties, costs and complexity would significantly disrupt sourcing of parts and components from the EU.

Executive director, business transformation at Ford of Britain, Graham Hoare, said the manufacturer had implemented measures to ensure product is available for fleets.

He explained: “We’ve brought a lot of cars into the UK and have maintained that availability. That’s really important so we don’t have disruption to our supply chains as the change happens.”

But he warned: “A Free Trade Agreement is necessary for the viability of our business. If you think about all the other changes we’re embarking upon… another burden just makes the activities we’re performing in the UK a little less viable.”

JUST-IN TIME

Frictionless trade within the EU has been critical for enabling the UK car industry to develop supply chains that cross EU borders several times.

A separate report, produced by The UK in a Changing Europe on Manufacturing and Brexit, highlights how supply chains have to operate with supreme efficiency, and parts have to be delivered ‘just-in-time’ throughout the day.

As an example, 350 trucks arrive from the EU every day at Honda’s plant in Swindon, bringing in about two million parts. Components arrive from five-24 hours after ordering. The plant is scheduled to close a year from now.

Meanwhile, a typical driveline system produced by GKN, the British-based supplier, incorporates specialist forged parts from the UK, Spain, Italy, France and Germany.

These are assembled at GKN Driveline’s factory in Birmingham and supplied to automotive assemblers in the UK and EU.

The components, assembled drivelines and the final assembled car could cross the English Channel several times, says the report.

It is a similar story for BMW, which assembles engines at its Hams Hall engine-assembly plant near Birmingham.

Engine blocks come from France and are processed at the plant. They may go to Germany for further work before being assembled.

The engine may go into a Mini assembled in Oxford or the Netherlands, or into a BMW assembled in Germany.

“The final car could be sold anywhere in Europe or globally,” the report says. “This close integration and the need for minimal trade friction becomes even more important as most UK car producers operate on very low profit margins (around £450 on a £15,000 car).”

BREXIT TALKS

After a meeting between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen last month, both agreed new momentum was needed in negotiations.

Official talks resumed at the start of this month, but ended with the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, saying that “regardless of the outcome” there would be “inevitable changes” from January 1, 2021. The next round of negotiations began last week, with no apparent progress made.

The commission has also told member states and businesses to revisit plans for a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

In a press briefing, prior to the SMMT’s annual International Automotive Summit, Hawes insisted: “We must secure a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement that maintains tariff- and quota-free trade. With such a deal, a strong recovery is possible.”

The UK in a Changing Europe report says the potential danger is that carmakers may simply decide that production in the UK is no longer profitable and shift their assembly plants to the EU.

Many manufacturers with plants in the UK also have plants in the EU to which they could move production. Moreover, many of these plants have spare capacity.

“Such relocations usually happen when new vehicle models are introduced, and the decisions about sites are normally taken at least two years in advance of planned production starts,” it says.

‘MULTIPLE CHALLENGES’

Key companies in the UK automotive sector, that account for the bulk of UK automotive production – Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), and Groupe PSA (Vauxhall’s owner) – have all planned new models in the next couple of years.

“There is a real danger they will decide to produce them in the EU, not the UK,” says the report. “This would have a knock-on effect on other industries in the UK.”

UK steel, for example, despite not being subject to tariffs itself, would suffer because the car industry would contract, reducing demand for steel.

“Manufacturing matters,” said Professor David Bailey, senior fellow of UK in a Changing Europe.

“Much of the sector has already taken a hit through the Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit risks further disruption for manufacturers which they are keen to minimise.

“A no-trade deal is seen as the worst-case scenario for sectors like automotive given the impact of tariffs. But even a minimal Free Trade Agreement could bring

disruption for manufacturers, for example via its impact on supply chains and in terms of regulatory divergence. Whatever the form of Brexit at the end of the transition period, manufacturing faces multiple challenges.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

I’m not really sure why I would include such an article in my newsletter other than the fact that some people actually like this sort of information. So for the nerds amongst us – and I mean that in a cuddly friendly way here is the best motorway as well as the best A Road!

The M11 has been rated the best motorway in England in Transport Focus research covering the year to March 2020.

In the 2019/20 Strategic Roads User Survey the motorway from London and Cambridgeshire had the highest overall satisfaction of 92%.

The best ‘A’ road was at the other end of the country, the A66 route across the Pennines from Scotch Corner to Penrith.

This is the second year of the independent watchdog’s new survey looking at the views of over 8,000 road users about their last journey on a motorway or major ‘A’ road managed by Highways England.

Anthony Smith, chief executive of Transport Focus, said: “In the 12 months before the coronavirus lockdown, more than three out of four drivers were satisfied with their journey on England’s motorways and major ‘A’ roads – but some roads score much better than others.”

Drivers were least satisfied with the M20 (which links London and Dover), for the second year in a row.

Commenting on the M20, one driver said: “Get the roadworks done – it’s been 50mph for too long – must be two years possibly…”

Commenting on an M11 journey, a driver said: “Easy way to go, everything went well, no roadworks or holdups.”

Commenting on their experience on the A66, another said: “Quick journey, no hold ups.”

The survey also found that 92% of drivers felt safe on their journey and the overall satisfaction with road surface quality was 83%.

81% of road users were satisfied with their last journey using a motorway or major ‘A’ road managed by Highways England and 79% were satisfied with the journey time.

However, the management of roadworks was lower, 68% of those surveyed were satisfied in this area.

Smith said: “As drivers return to the roads it is vital that management of roadworks is looked at. With just 68 per cent of drivers satisfied this is clearly an area for Highways England to keep focussing on.

“Our research shows that if you’re happy with journey time, you’ll be happy with your journey overall. That’s an important message for Highways England as traffic starts to get back to pre-lockdown levels.”

The least happy road users were commuters at 76% satisfied, followed closely by those travelling on business at 77%. Among drivers of vans and lorries 78% were satisfied with their journey.

The Strategic Roads User Survey became the formal measure of satisfaction among users of Highways England’s roads in April 2020 as part of the Government’s second Road Investment Strategy. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Fleets and private motorists are being warned about an increased risk of drug driving as employees return to work from furlough.

The warning, from a major supplier of drug driver testing equipment, comes as figures from the police show how drug driving is becoming more prevalent than drink driving.

D.tec International, which supplies the ‘DrugWipe’ roadside test kits to every police force in England, Wales and Scotland, says the figures are “shocking”.

During the first six months of the year, the combined number of drug drive arrests for three police forces was 50% higher than those for drink driving.

In Essex, there were 1,323 arrests for drug driving, more than double the number of those for drink driving (647).

In Merseyside, it was the same story, with 1,121 drug drive arrests and 570 for drink driving. But in West Yorkshire, the figures for drink and drug driving, while still high, were on a similar level, with 1,235 drug driving arrests and 1,178 for drink driving.

Police forces started reporting arrests for drug driving had surpassed drink-driving for the first time, last year.

Ean Lewin, managing director of D.tec International, said: “I know I have been going on about the magnitude of drug drive versus drink drive for a number of years, but even I am shocked by the recent arrest figures for the first half of 2020.

“During the last few months during lockdown, it got even worse.”

In 2019, Merseyside became the first force to record more than 2,000 annual drug drive arrests – and there were more than a dozen forces with more or equivalent drug drive arrests, compared to those for drink driving.

Looking specifically at the lockdown period alone, in April and May 2020 Essex Police recorded two-and-a-half to three times more drug drive arrests, compared to drink drive.

Lewin continued: “The issue is that companies are bringing back these employees from furlough and simply not looking at the drug and alcohol issues that have been created.

“The EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) has been looking at this issue during the lock down period, and in an extensive report says that ‘those who use drink or drugs are now using more’.”

Furthermore, Lewin says he has heard of companies seeing employees coming back to work who have “needed a crutch” in the form of alcohol or drugs during lockdown – and are now asking for help to deal with the issue.

Four out of five respondents to a Fleet News poll said drug-driving had become such a safety issue for fleets that they think employers should be routinely testing company car and van drivers.

At the time, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) lead for roads policing, chief constable Anthony Bangham, said he was “concerned” to see the increase in the number of motorists testing positive for drugs.

He told Fleet News public perception of the issue needs to change.

“Drink driving is considered socially unacceptable by the vast majority of the public, yet the emergence of drug-driving is perhaps not yet seen in the same way,” he said. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The European Commission has started the regulatory work aimed at setting the next stage of type approval requirements for vehicle emissions, it will be known as Euro 7/VII.

Following a public consultation, which ends in November 2020, the Commission will carry out an evaluation of the current Euro 6/VI vehicle emission standards to assess its impact to date.

The evaluation will assess to what extent the Euro 6/VI vehicle emission standards have achieved their objectives of harmonising the rules on pollutant emissions from vehicles and improving air quality by reducing pollutants emitted by road transport.

The existing vehicle emission standards include real-driving emissions (RDE) testing for cars and vans and portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) testing for lorries and buses. Since its introduction, and subequent revisions, this has led to an improvement in the emissions performance of vehicles.

The European Commission, however, believes that the current standards do not sufficiently contribute to the decrease in air pollutant emissions emerging from road transport, required for the move towards zero-pollution in Europe.

It believes there are three areas that prevent Euro6/VI from being effective and wants to resolve them with the new standards.

The first issue is complexity. There are separate regulatory frameworks for vehicle types, different dates of entry into force for Euro 6/VI steps, many different emission tests and differences in emission standards based on fuel and technology.

This complexity requires time and significant resources for both manufacturers and national authorities, which has led to a high testing and administrative burden, as well as a risk of misinterpretations in the application of the standards.

The European Commission also believes that the current emission limits no longer represent the available emission reduction technology.

Lastly, it says that real-world emissions are still not measured under all conditions of use in Euro 6/VI and are not monitored throughout the entire lifetime of the vehicle.

As a result, the Commission has identified a preliminary set of policy options to achieve the specified objectives. They will be revised once all the results of the evaluations/studies are available.

• Option one will consider a narrow revision of Euro 6/VI and would involve setting up a single air pollutant emissions standard for cars, vans, lorries and buses. It would also involve simplifying the existing emission tests while keeping a focus on real-world testing
• Option two will consider a wider revision of Euro 6/VI by including more stringent air pollutant emission limits for all vehicles. This would involve stricter emission limits for regulated air pollutants and/or new emission limits for currently non-regulated air pollutants
• Option three will consider a comprehensive revision of Euro 6/VI by introducing real-world emission monitoring over the entire lifetime of a vehicle. Data on air pollutant emissions collected through on-board monitoring (OBM) would subsequently support market surveillance and in-service conformity testing

An implementation plan is not planned at this time, but one may be considered when the preferred option has been selected. The European Commission says this implementation plan would address the possible implementation challenges that the preferred option will face. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

It is now felt that whilst the ban will initially relate just to commercial and large passenger carrying vehicles it won’t be long before the legislation will spread to cars.

Tyres aged ten years and older will be banned from lorries, buses and coaches on roads in England, Scotland and Wales in a boost to road safety.

The ban follows an investigation, including research commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), which indicated ageing tyres suffer corrosion which could cause them to fail.

It will be illegal to fit tyres aged ten years or older to the front wheels of lorries, buses and coaches, and all wheels of minibuses, under the new rules.

The secondary legislation will be laid in the autumn and will also apply to re-treaded tyres – with the date of re-treading to be marked – making the age of the tyre clearly visible.

Roads Minister Baroness Vere said: “In the same way that you wouldn’t drive a car with faulty brakes, ensuring your tyres are fit for purpose is crucial in making every journey safer.

“Taking this step will give drivers across the country confidence their lorries, buses and coaches are truly fit for use – a safety boost for road users everywhere.

“This change is in no small way the result of years of campaigning, particularly from Frances Molloy, to whom I thank and pay tribute.”

Frances Molloy’s son Michael died in a coach crash, where the vehicle had a 19-year-old tyre fitted to the front axle of a coach in 2012. Since the accident, Molloy has campaigned to see the law changed.

Drivers, owners and operators are responsible for the safety of their vehicles –this will also now include ensuring their vehicle’s tyres meet the new requirements.

The DVSA will continue checking tyre age as part of their routine roadside enforcement activities, and adding an additional assessment to the Annual Test scheme (MOT test). By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Toyota has developed a new cabin safety screen to help mitigate the risk of coronavirus transmission for its UK private-hire taxi driver customers and their passengers.

The screen, which has been approved for use by Transport for London (TfL), is made from clear polycarbonate material that Toyota says can reduce the chances of virus transmission.

It is compatible with all recent Prius models and the full Corolla range – hatchback, touring sports and saloon.

Toyota is currently awaiting approval for the screen on larger models like the seven-seat Prius+ and RAV4 SUV.

Installation by Toyota-qualified technicians is required but takes about 10 minutes.

The Japanese manufacturer said the process involves no structural changes and does not damage the car’s interior; the screen is held in place by large tabs on its lower edge that are inserted in the front seatback pockets.

Toyota’s own testing showed that the screen remained securely fixed, even when driving at high speeds with the windows open.

The screen is clear and has a central opening flap for card or cash payments to be made. As well as being suitable for cabs, the system can also be used for demonstration vehicles and accompanied test drives.

The screens are being made by Toyota Manufacturing UK and are available to order through Toyota retailers nationwide. Recommended retail prices, including VAT and fitting, are £195 for the medium screen and £210 for the larger version.

Stuart Ferma, Toyota and Lexus fleet general manager, said: “Transportation services everywhere are having to be adapted to take the risk of coronavirus transmission into account.

“We recognise the particular vulnerability of cab drivers and have come up with a solution we believe is effective and reasonably priced.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The average electric vehicle (EV) driver spends £310 per year on electricity to charge it at home, according to a new study by Uswitch.

The energy comparison service calculated the cost based on a typical EV covering 10,000 miles per year at the UK’s average electricity price per kWh.

It also calculated the cost of charging an EV in different countries around the world, based on the average price and mileage in those territories.

The UK ranked as the 10^th most expensive out of 50 countries in the study, with the most expensive country to charge an electric vehicle revealed as Denmark, followed by Germany and Belgium.

Average annual EV charging cost:

Country	Annual Charging Cost Per Person
Denmark	£486.59
Germany	£412.87
Belgium	£398.12
Italy	£383.37
Ireland	£383.37
Portugal	£353.88
Spain	£339.14
Austria	£324.39
Japan	£324.39
United Kingdom	£309.65

Sarah Broomfield, energy expert at Uswitch, said: “The use of electric vehicles has clear environmental benefits but for many consumers, the choice to move to EVs can be hindered by perceptions about how much it will cost to charge.

“This research shows that, while the costs are not insignificant, the UK is in a strong position compared to countries like Denmark where the price of electricity makes the cost of a charge so much higher.

“Of course, as well as the cost savings of rapid charging points, we also encourage consumers to regularly review their own energy tariffs to ensure they’re getting the best deal possible.”

The current advisory fuel rate (AFR) for an alternative fuel vehicle is 4ppm, meaning drivers can claim £400 for every 10,000 business miles covered. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The potentially enormous safety benefits of self-driving vehicles have long been considered to be among the technology’s biggest assets.

Numerous research projects have found human error is a contributing factor in between 85% and 95% of current road collisions.

The conventional thinking has been that if you remove human error through the use of fully autonomous technology, then the collision rate would fall by a similar amount.

This has been a strong selling point for self-driving vehicles to a public which, so far, seems unwilling to trust the technology.

For example, research conducted last year on behalf of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers found 60% of people said they would always prefer to drive themselves rather than use a self-driving vehicle, while two-thirds of people are uncomfortable with the idea of travelling in a driverless car.

Part of this could be down to unfamiliarity with a technology which is still being trialled and developed, and is many years away from being a common sight on the roads.

But the way the mainstream media overlooks the many hundreds of thousands of incident-free miles travelled in self-driving vehicle trials around the world while sensationally covering collisions also has an impact, argue autonomous vehicle (AV) advocates.

“The headlines go ‘whoosh’ (if there is a collision),” Ben Boutcher-West, head of mobility at kerbside management company AppyWay, told a Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport Forum conference on autonomous transport in the UK.

“The way the media handles some of those events make it very difficult for any OEM to put their name forward and push out a service.

“It’s the way they (driverless cars) are perceived. That for me is all about media and education and the moment these vehicles put a foot wrong, they will be battered like crazy by people who maybe don’t understand the full situation of what actually occurred.”

A study released in America this month by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS – see panel below), found the perceived safety benefits of AVs could be significantly lower than commonly believed by the wider AV sector.

It claimed self-driving vehicles might prevent only one-third of crashes if automated systems drive too much like people.

“It is likely that fully self-driving cars will identify hazards better than people,” says Jessica Cichone, vice-president for research at IIHS and a co-author of the study. “But we found this alone would not prevent the bulk of crashes.”

The study was criticised by companies and organisations working on self-driving vehicles who argue that it underestimates the technology’s capabilities.

No mistakes can be made

However, any negative publicity can reinforce opposition to the technology and Brian Wong, director at specialist transport law firm Burges Salmon, warns: “If the societal acceptance (of self-driving vehicles) is going to change, then nobody, and least of all the connected and autonomous vehicle (CAV) industry, can really afford for mistakes to be made.”

This places extra importance on the success of AV trials, a number of which have already been carried out in the UK.

These include the Nissan-led HumanDrive project which, in November, saw a modified Nissan Leaf electric car cover 99% of the 230 miles between Milton Keynes and Sunderland in fully autonomous mode, and Driven, led by software developer Oxbotica.

This £13.6 million project ran from April 2017 to December 2019 and focused on completing fully autonomous routes within the complex urban environments of London and Oxford.

The Government has produced a code of practice to provide guidance on trialling AV technologies on public roads or in other public places in the UK.

It makes recommendations on how to maintain safety and minimise potential risks, and was this year supplemented by two new key documents.

PAS 1881 Assuring Safety of Automated Vehicle Trials and Testing was released by the British Standards Institution (BSI) in its role as the UK’s national standards body, and Zenzic, the organisation dedicated to accelerating the self-driving revolution in the UK. In addition, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) created an updated Safety Case Framework Report 2.0.

PAS 1881 has been delivered in conjunction with the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CCAV), Department for Transport (DfT) and Innovate UK.

Document author Camilla Fowler, head of risk management at TRL says it aims to accelerate the safe use of connected and autonomous vehicles with guidance and technical standards.

It includes a safety case which details the aim of the trial and what technology is being used. This filters into a risk assessment as well as identifying what action can be taken to mitigate any risks.

“Until this standard was released, there hadn’t been any regulations or standards that document what should be within a safety case,” she says.

“Building trust is about addressing fears over safety and security and one of the key things we need to make sure of is that we are very transparent in our approach to managing those fears.

“Publishing safety cases will go towards helping public trust in AV trials and testing so they can understand what it is that is happening, how many vehicles and where is it happening, what the test objectives are, what are the key risks and what are the control measures.”

New risks

However, risks – as with all new technologies and road transport – will remain.

“There are still more than 27,000 people killed or seriously injured on our roads each year and while CAVs have real potential to reduce that number significantly, they also could bring new types of risks” says Catherine Lovell, deputy head of the Government’s CCAV.

“The sensors could fail to properly gain information about the environment around them, the vehicle could fail to correctly interpret that and choose a safe driving course.

“Or they might be vulnerable to things like cyber-attack in a way that current vehicles are not. So, in CCAV, we’re trying to sort of bring those benefits forward as fast as possible while also being aware of those risks and tackling them.”

It is clear that setting the right expectations for the safety of self-driving cars is an important factor in winning public acceptance for the technology.

And while it would be possible for AV developers to strive for close to zero risk of causing a collision, injury or fatality, it would take a very long time to develop and prove that systems are at that level, says David Hynd, chief scientist for safety and investigations at TRL.

“There is a balance to be made,” he adds. “If you wait that long, a lot of people will have been injured and killed in the meantime, so part of the idea is to find a good balance between what you are really aiming for long-term and being able to save lives and serious injuries as you go along that journey.”

So, how safe is safe enough for an AV?

“It sounds like a very simple question, whereas it’s a really big and quite a difficult question to answer,” says Hynd.

“A lot of people talk about defining safety in terms of a comparison with human drivers, so you could say it’s got to be at least as safe as human drivers.

“It’s got to have no more collisions, no more serious injuries, no more deaths than we currently have on the road network.

“But, if you think about the number of collisions that involve a human component or some kind of failing from the human driver such as drink-driving or speeding, if the car is doing the driving task then it automatically doesn’t have any of those things.

“For me, the target has got to be – as a minimum – that it does at least as well as a very good, alert human driver who is paying attention to the driving task.

That is still quite a woolly definition, but is quite a lot safer than humans on average because everybody sometimes is not as awake as they should be or is not paying as much attention as they should be, and we have other poor behaviours on the road as well.”

Crash reduction likely to be less than expected, says new report

Self-driving cars could reduce collisions by a significant amount less than commonly-held industry expectations, according to new analysis by America’s Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

The technology has sometimes been touted as key to reducing crashes to almost zero, but the research group, funded by US insurers, found self-driving car technology may actually cut collisions by just a third.

“Building self-driving cars that drive as well as people do is a big challenge in itself,” says Alexandra Mueller, research scientist at IIHS and lead author of the study. “But they’d actually need to do better than that to deliver on the promises we’ve all heard.”

For the study, researchers analysed more than 5,000 police-reported crashes and determined the driver-related factors contributing to those.

They imagined a future in which all the vehicles on the road are self-driving. They assumed these future vehicles would prevent those crashes that were caused exclusively by perception errors or involved an incapacitated driver.

That is because cameras and sensors of fully autonomous vehicles could be expected to monitor the roadway and identify potential hazards better than a human driver and be incapable of distraction or incapacitation.

Crashes due to only sensing and perceiving errors accounted for 24% of the total and incapacitation 10%.

The study concluded these collisions might be avoided if all vehicles on the road were self-driving – though it would require sensors that worked perfectly and systems that never malfunctioned.

The remaining two-thirds might still occur unless autonomous vehicles are also specifically programmed to avoid other types of predicting, decision-making and performance errors.

However, the autonomous vehicle industry in the US says its cars are programmed to prevent a vastly higher number of potential crash causes, including more complex errors caused by drivers making inadequate or incorrect evasive manoeuvres.

Taking those design choices into account, autonomous vehicles could avoid some 72% of crashes, countered Partners for Automated Vehicle Education, a consortium of self-driving technology companies.

The group says it is “fundamentally speculative” to determine crash avoidance rates.

It adds: “We believe that reducing traffic fatalities by even a third would be something to be proud of. We aim to do even more.”

Other benefits of driverless cars

More accessible transport

In theory, driverless cars mean no driving licence, so people of all ages and abilities could access mobility. There is great potential for enabling older people and those with disabilities to travel.

“I can see AVs being very useful for people who maybe have health issues and are unable to drive, as it may increase their mobility and freedom,” says Camilla Fowler, head of risk management at TRL.

Reduced emissions

Widespread adoption of self-driving vehicles also has the potential to reduce energy consumption and emissions.

This can be done by optimising traffic flow for fuel consumption and platooning where AVs travel very close to each other to reduce aerodynamic drag.

If used as smart taxis or autonomous ride-share, AVs could require a much smaller fleet to service travellers’ needs.

“People often talk about the safety aspects, but I think there are very clear potential benefits in terms of minimising the use of energy to get people from A to B,” says David Hynd, chief scientist for safety and investigations at TRL.

“These benefits – in terms of efficiency and energy consumption – might actually come to be seen as the bigger wins for autonomous vehicles in the long-term.”

Cheaper transport

The costs of drivers and safety requirements (driver rest breaks etc.) are a major outlay for transportation companies. Vehicles that drive themselves would cost less to operate, enabling more, cheaper taxi and ride-sharing-type services.

KPMG says roughly half the cost of on-demand private hire vehicles relates to the driver and, as a result, estimates that AV mobility as a service provision could be up to 40% cheaper than private vehicle ownership by 2030.

Congestion reduction

In theory, driverless cars could organise themselves to optimise road use by ‘platooning’ and by automatically rerouting to avoid congestion.

“Spatially-aware vehicles will drive together at no cost to safety and future capacity increases will be achieved by platooning or cooperative adaptive cruise control,” says Lizi Stewart, managing director, UK transportation, at Atkins.

“Platooning will allow cars to drive with shorter headways and gaps of just 0.5 seconds is the equivalent to at least another whole lane on the motorway.”

Working with smart traffic control could further optimise road use and increase road safety. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Private parking firms issued almost a quarter (24%) more tickets in 2019-20, compared to the previous 12 months.

Companies handed out 8.4 million tickets to British drivers during the last financial year, RAC Foundation analysis of Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) data has found.

This is up from 6.8 million in 2018-19. The data suggests tickets are being issued at a rate of one every four seconds.

Steve Gooding, director at the RAC Foundation, said: “Anyone who received a private parking ticket last year would have been in plentiful company – yet again the number of keeper addresses released by the DVLA to private parking companies has shot up, this time by almost a quarter.

“To put the numbers in context, if every one of the 8.4 million releases came with a ticket to the next Glastonbury festival, Michael Eavis would have to re-run the event over 60 times to fit everyone in.”

Parking companies can obtain vehicle keeper records from the DVLA to chase car owners for alleged infringements in private car parks. Each resultant ticket can cost drivers up to £100.

Sir Greg Knight MP’s Parking (Code of Practice) Bill officially became law in March 2019 with the aim of bringing rogue parking firms into line or putting them out of business.

It allows for a Government-sanctioned code of practice to replace the current self-regulatory standards that are drawn up by the industry itself.

Gooding said: “The hard graft of creating a new code of practice for the industry is currently under way. This will go out for public consultation before being presented to Parliament.

“But the code is just one part of the new framework that needs to be put in place, including a single appeals body and independent scrutiny of the private parking trade associations and their members.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We are committed to cracking down on the minority of rogue parking operators who exploit motorists.

“That’s why we are working with the British Standards Institution on a Code of Practice for the industry that is fair to both drivers and operators. We expect to consult on this new Code later this year.”

The DVLA charges private firms £2.50 per record.

The agency says its charges are set to recover the cost of providing the information and it does not make any money from the process. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News