The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

All drivers and especially fleets need to be aware of the growing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on mental health and subsequent safety risks to drivers, says FleetCheck.

The warning follows a new poll from the Mail on Sunday, which revealed that 40% of people believed their mental health had become worse during the pandemic.

Peter Golding, managing director at FleetCheck, said: “This is just the latest in a series of polls and pieces of research showing how the last nine months have had a very negative effect on the mental health of many, many people.

“We know that mental health problems of all kinds can have an impact on driver performance on the road. With people saying that feelings of anxiety, stress and depression are particularly apparent, there is a genuine case for fleets to act.”

Golding says employers should be fulfilling their basic requirement of checking that drivers are fit to drive, and mental wellbeing should be part of the assessment.

He said: “It should be taken as a given that anyone who feels that their mental health has deteriorated to a point where they should not be driving should be taken seriously, and employers should also make it clear that such situations will be dealt with sympathetically.

“Probably the starting point for most fleets would be to seek professional human resources and medical guidance in order to ask drivers a few questions regularly in order to flag up any immediate issues that need attention.”

At the Fleet200 Executive Club virtual meeting in November, 2020, fleets discussed how Covid-19 caused a rise in drivers’ mental health issues. They also discussed how it impacted their operations and the changes they have implemented.

In an interview with Fleet News, behavioural sciences researcher at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), Rosie Sharp, said driver engagement could be key in improving mental health and wellbeing of drivers.

FleetCheck was examining the introduction of basic mental health tools into its Vehicle Inspection App, which incorporated questions about the driver’s health, as well as daily walkaround safety checks, says Golding.

Golding said: “We modified the app last year to cover coronavirus symptoms and now seems like a good moment to add further questions about mental health. We are taking advice and hope to be able to do this soon.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Motorists caught drink-driving as the post-lockdown rush to the pubs starts, could end up being £70,000 out of pocket when all the personal financial costs of their conviction are taken into account, a road safety charity has warned.

IAM Roadsmart – formerly the Institute of Advanced Motorists – points out that those who are convicted of a drink-driving offence face fines, legal fees, higher car insurance premiums, alternative transport costs and potential loss of earnings.

Research by the organisation suggests fines associated with the conviction could be £5,000, the previous maximum fine – though a conviction now brings a limitless financial penalty. Legal fees following conviction after a not guilty plea come in at an average of £11,000, while increased car insurance premiums typically run to £13,500 over five years, the period for which drivers must tell insurers about a conviction.

During a ban, offenders can also expect to rack up £2,000 in taxi or public transportation bills while they don’t have a car, plus a loss in earnings of £38,500 over 15 months is possible based on the average UK salary, and unemployment following a conviction.

Official Government figures show there were 250 fatal drink-driving accidents in 2017 – the highest number since 2010. This was despite 2017 only seeing 326,000 roadside breath tests, compared with 737,000 in 2010.

Around a fifth of drink-driving convictions and a third of roadside breath tests take place the morning after the night the suspect has allegedly been drinking, between the hours of 7am and 1pm.

December 2018 saw a 16 per cent rise in drink-driving offences compared with the same month the previous year. Typically, around 20 per cent of drink-driving offences for any given year take place in December.

Drink-driving kills, so during the post COVID celebration period don’t be tempted to have a drink before getting behind the wheel – it’s irresponsible and incredibly dangerous.”

Neil Greig, director of policy and research at IAM Roadsmart, said: “Drink-driving wrecks lives and is totally unacceptable in any circumstance. However, some people still think they are safe to drive when they’ve had just a couple of drinks or are using home (lockdown) measures, which can quickly push them over the limit.

“The £70,000 impact of being convicted of drink-driving is very sobering. This should be more than enough – let alone the thought of causing any other suffering for yourself, your family or the other people you put at risk on the road – to stop those drivers who are tempted to have an extra drink and get behind the wheel.”

We are all desperate to get out and socialise with friends and family in pubs and bars but don’t let the celebrations lead to you having a few too many and getting behind the wheel of your car. There have already been too many deaths and even if you don’t have an accident don’t find yourself counting the cost of losing your licence.  By Graham Hill thanks to Auto Express.

The vast majority of mechanics are not yet qualified to work on EVs as the 2030 deadline looms, experts are warning.

Only five per cent of mechanics working in dealerships and garages across the UK are qualified to work on electric vehicles, according to a leading industry body.

In response to the Government’s announcement that a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars is to be accelerated from 2040 to 2030, the Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI) has pointed out that 95 per cent of the country’s mechanics have yet to complete the necessary qualifications to safely work on electric vehicles.

This means at present, there are between 13,000 and 20,000 qualified technicians working on 380,000 plug-in vehicles across the UK. The IMI is concerned that as EV and PHEV adoption increases, the number of vehicles will further outweigh the number of mechanics who can work on them. The organisation issued a similar warning in 2018, when only three per cent of mechanics were trained to work on EVs.

Covid-19 has only exacerbated the issue, the IMI says. In 2019, 6,500 certificates for working on EVs were issued in the UK. In Q2 2020, though, the number of certificates issued was down 85 per cent on the same period last year.

The organisation is now calling for support and incentives to be given to automotive firms to increase the number of technicians being trained to work on EVs, as well as improve and implement recruitment and apprenticeship schemes.

The organisation also warned that year that the existing Electricity at Work regulations weren’t comprehensive enough for automotive mechanics, merely referencing “systems in vehicles”.  By Graham Hill thanks to Auto Express

DVSA says reducing emissions will help meet climate-change targets and improve air quality; MoT tests will also be updated to check modern safety kit.

The MoT test is to be made stricter, with cars having to meet more stringent emissions targets in the future, according to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). The annual roadworthiness check will also be updated to ensure recent developments in safety technology are inspected to ensure proper operation.

Neil Barlow, head of MoT policy at the DVSA, said: “The MoT will need to change if it is to stay useful, both in terms of safety systems and emissions.”

“Manufacturers put loads of effort into designing some pretty whizzy tech that goes on modern cars with internal combustion engines”, Barlow said. “We will probably want to be better at checking that those systems will be working as designed.”

Barlow added that while “there isn’t anything immediate” in the pipeline with regard to toughening up the test, he is “keen that we get towards” tougher emission tests and inspections of safety systems.

The MoT test is unlikely to become so strict that cars would have to meet the emission limits they hit when they went through the type approval process, as engine wear and other aspects of degradation mean cars often get less clean as they age.

“Obviously that won’t be back to factory design, and has to be a solution that’s cost-effective for industry”,  Barlow said. He added: “There’s no change planned that there’s a date for, but this is the direction of travel – emissions will be an important thing to check….It probably is clear as we look ahead, that if we want to keep driving down overall emission levels…we’ve got to check that cars are performing as they were designed.”

Such a toughening-up of emissions checks would partly be driven by national emission targets for the collective benefit of the country, Barlow said: “Those Government targets are for us, aren’t they? They’re for us and our health. It’s not about fulfilling draconian Government aims, it’s about improving our health, and if we can keep vehicles working better as they were designed, that must be a good thing.”

Advanced safety systems to be checked at MoT time

Turning to safety, all new cars sold in Europe from 2022 will have to have several safety systems, including intelligent speed assistance (a form of speed limiter) as well as autonomous emergency braking and lane-keeping assistance. Systems such as these, where fitted, could form part of the MoT test in the future, though which technologies would be checked have yet to be decided.

“We talk about emergency braking”, Barlow said. “From a motorists perspective, you might say ‘well I would expect that to be tested’. But what are its failure modes? What do we find with the experience of this being in service for a while? Does it actually go wrong? In what ways does it go wrong?

“The stuff we want to test is the stuff that does go wrong. There’s no point in testing stuff that proves to be incredibly reliable. I’m not saying that [AEB] is one or the other of those.. but we need to make sure it’s evidence based, what we include in the test.”

Barlow stressed that fundamental checks such as ensuring tyre-treads are of the correct depth would always be core to the MoT, saying: “The basics are really important, and we don’t want to lose those”.  By Graham Hill thanks to Auto Express.

Auto Express Exclusive: the high cost of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

We find out that rash planning means Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, which were designed to improve residents’ lives, are doing more harm than good!

Local councils across the country have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on traffic reduction schemes that have been riddled with problems, including increased pollution, delayed emergency service vehicles and divided communities. Auto Express has uncovered how local authorities spent or plan to spend millions on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), despite numerous complaints, alterations and reversals of such schemes.

After hearing about issues relating to LTNs, we began researching these projects, sending a series of Freedom of Information requests to the UK’s local authorities in November last year.

We asked if councils had installed or plan to install any LTNs, how much they have spent or plan to spend on them, if any schemes have been altered or reversed, and what penalties had been issued to drivers contravening the new rules.

What are Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Giving road space over to pedestrians and cyclists isn’t new, but the recent rise in Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) owes everything to the coronavirus pandemic.

With public transport problematic due to social distancing and Covid-19, in May last year the Government announced a £250million ‘Emergency Active Travel Fund’. Local authorities could apply to create schemes that encouraged walking and cycling.

Four types of scheme have been popular with councils, and all have the potential to make driving more difficult: widened pavements to allow for greater social distancing; new cycle lanes to encourage people onto bikes; ‘School Streets’ to bar motor vehicles from schools at pick-up and drop-off; and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, which divert motorists from residential roads onto busier boundary routes.

LTNs can be created by closing off roads with bollards or planters, or can be enforced with signs telling drivers not to use the streets. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras can issue fines to vehicles who pass them, or those that aren’t registered to an address within the LTN.

The first tranche of money released by the Government saw £42million issued to councils for temporary schemes; the second tranche, worth £175million and released in November, was for more permanent projects. The Scottish Government, meanwhile, has funded similar ‘Spaces for People’ programmes, while London’s LTNs fall under its Streetspace scheme, with money coming from both central Government and Transport for London.

While all these programmes have the potential to make driving more difficult, LTNs have been the most controversial and problematic type of scheme to arise from the Active Travel Fund.

Costs we uncovered

Number of schemes completed	138
Number of schemes planned	76
Number of schemes reversed	13
Number of schemes altered	25
Cost of completed schemes	£7,681,005
Cost of alterations	£86,099
Cost of planned schemes	£7,150,421
Cost of reversing schemes	£51,762
(Cost of reversed schemes*	£922,721
Total cost so far	£14,969,287

*Reversed schemes accounted for in cost of completed schemes

Failed schemes, wasted money

Wiltshire Council spent £412,000 on an “exciting and ambitious project” that saw Salisbury city centre closed to through traffic on 21 October last year. Of that total, £250,622 went on “consultancy and monitoring” fees for the LTN, £64,800 was spent on its construction, £92,250 worth of enforcement cameras were installed, and changes to road signage cost £4,328.

Yet that money would seem to have been entirely wasted, because Wiltshire had to spend a further £10,000-£15,000 suspending the scheme “indefinitely”, returning Salisbury to its pre-LTN state “due to impacts on local businesses during 2nd lockdown”, and a lack of “pivotal” support from Salisbury City Council. Wiltshire said it was “disappointed and surprised” by the city’s decision, because “early evidence” showed the scheme was having a “positive impact”, and the city council had “previously provided clear backing for this scheme”.

Two LTN schemes in Redbridge, London, costing £297,971 were scrapped after little more than a month following residents’ complaints, with a further £29,762 spent reinstating the roads. The City of Westminster Council, meanwhile, held a local consultation and decided not to implement its Paddington and Hyde Park scheme, but it still spent a projected £137,897 on design, engineering, consultation and other fees.

Of the 138 schemes we learned had been implemented, 25 had been altered at a cost of £86,099, while a further 13 had been scrapped after feedback and complaints from residents and emergency services.

Wakefield Council in West Yorkshire spent £40,000 installing then reversing an LTN, while Nottingham City Council spent £33,250 on two LTNs, before deciding that the “application of temporary barriers was not entirely successful” following feedback from residents.

The total costs for the LTN reversals we uncovered run to at least £974,483, but some authorities had yet to calculate how much had been spent on installing failed schemes. Wandsworth Council, for example, spent £17,000 suspending seven LTNs, but would not tell us how much the cancelled projects had cost to implement because their calculations were in “draft format”. Yet the council still has plans for a further nine schemes, despite the cancellations, and a report uncovered by The Daily Telegraph that showed levels of nitrogen dioxide – a harmful gas present in exhaust fumes – decreased in some streets after the LTNs were scrapped.

Emergency services face delays

Councils were quick to spend money released by central Government, but the impact closing roads has on access for emergency vehicles appears to have been ignored in some cases. Islington Council in London had to alter an LTN road by removing a bollard “after feedback from emergency services”. Wandsworth Council told us the seven LTNs it reversed were cancelled partly due to “concerns with emergency access”.

E-mails seen by Auto Express show London Fire Brigade having to “object” to Ealing Council’s proposals to use “immovable concrete blocks” in the road to create LTNs. Firefighters had to explain to planners that the blocks “may have a negative effect on any emergency attendance made to incidents within these areas”.

The Metropolitan Police, meanwhile, told Ealing that one LTN brought concerns about “an impact on [officer] response times for the surrounding area”. The police added the LTN “could also create a crime ‘hot spot’ where criminals will use these types of closures to evade police”. The Met Police also told Transport for London and other councils that roads closed with bollards had “delayed response times to crimes”.

London Fire Brigade and the Metropolitan Police were at least consulted prior to the installation of Ealing’s LTNs, but the chief executive of London Ambulance Service (LAS) wrote to the head of the council, saying: “I appreciate you were under the impression that the LAS had been fully consulted on LTN schemes ahead of implementation, but, sadly, I am afraid this was not the case.”

One incident in Ealing saw an LAS manager ask the council to permanently remove LTN barriers after paramedics were delayed when attending a call-out, and were unable to park near an elderly patient’s home. The 95-year-old lady had to be transported “some distance” in the rain to the ambulance.

The manager said the crew was also “delayed getting to the patient’s address” and requested ANPR cameras replace the barriers. A local councillor told the authority’s highway department the incident was an “indignity”, although fortunately the delay didn’t cause any harm to health.

Ealing Council admitted it didn’t consult with LAS at the same time as the police and fire brigade, apologised for not doing so, and made a “number of changes” following feedback. Ealing told us it had “been assured by emergency services that no delays have occurred which have impacted on their response times”. The council also insisted “all emergency services were consulted and continue to be engaged” but admitted “There was an issue with an incorrect E-mail” during the consultation”.

A million a month in fines

Local authorities spent handsomely on LTNs, but a lot is being recouped from fines issued to drivers entering streets that they are no longer allowed to use. Data obtained by Auto Express shows that in a single month, Ealing Council issued 7,125 penalty charge notices worth £926,250 (£463k if drivers paid within 14 days).

It’s a similar story for other councils in London. Drivers in Lewisham were charged £3m in LTN penalties between June and October last year, while Enfield Council had taken £1.25m from 33,968 fines issued since mid-September. Merton Council raised up to £53,040 from 408 LTN fines between May 2020 and January this year. Elsewhere in south London, Lambeth Council spent £301,828 on surveillance cameras in five LTNs, justifying this by saying: “Most people in Lambeth don’t own a car, but all motorists on our borough’s streets are required to drive legally and obey the law at all times.”

Councils in London have greater powers than most local authorities, because they are able to issue penalties for moving traffic offences. But with new rules set to allow more councils to issue such fines, authorities across the country may soon enforce their LTNs with £130 fines. Salford City Council admitted exactly that to Auto Express, stating it will issue LTN fines “dependent on the availability of Part 6 Traffic Management Act powers”.

Pricey planters

One method that councils use to close roads to cars is to place planters – wooden boxes filled with earth and flora – across the carriageway, but they don’t come cheap. The Royal Borough of Greenwich in south-east London spent £31,740 on planters at the five LTNs that cost the council a total of £106,439. Redbridge Council, to the north-east of the capital, spent £4,800 storing planters used in its two cancelled schemes.

But the council with the greenest fingers we found was Lambeth in south London, which plans to spend £90,390 on planters across four LTN sites. The council said that this includes purchase, installation and up to three years’ maintenance, plus it’s a fraction of the £893,758 that Lambeth has earmarked for LTNs overall.

LTNs: A rush job?

Authorities at all levels were under pressure to respond to coronavirus, but problems related to LTNs may be linked to central Government conditions. Department for Transport (DfT) guidance issued to local authorities said projects paid for by the Active Travel Fund had to reallocate road space to pedestrians and cyclists in a “swift and meaningful” way.

The DfT also stipulated work on the schemes had to commence within four weeks of funds being received, and be completed within just eight weeks of starting, with the DfT saying it would “claw the funding back by adjusting downwards a future grant payment” if these conditions weren’t met.

Some of the amounts awarded for LTNs are huge. Birmingham City Council is spending an estimated £525,000 on a number of programmes, mainly comprising road closures, and two schemes in Sheffield are projected to cost £672,000.

Manchester City Council, meanwhile, expects to spend £2.5million on road closures (among other changes) for a ‘Filtered Neighbourhood’ scheme. This is being paid for out of the ‘Mayor of Greater Manchester’s Challenge Fund’ rather than the active travel fund, however, meaning it is not subject to the same tight timescales as many LTNs, and Manchester City Council highlights the six-month trial scheme was subject to “extensive public consultation.”

Could LTNs work better?

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are intended to reduce pressure on public transport, bring pollution down by discouraging car use, improve physical health by getting people walking and cycling, and lead to quieter, more pleasant communities. A 2014 scheme in Waltham Forest, east London, for example, was initially met with resistance from the community, but has since been hailed a success.

The scheme created a ‘20-minute neighbourhood’, a community-minded environment that allows people to meet most of their daily needs within walking distance.  A recent survey from consultants Redfield & Wilton, meanwhile, found that 63 per cent of respondents living in an LTN said their lives had improved, while 47 per cent of those not living in an LTN thought a scheme would make their lives better.

What do the authorities say?

The DfT said that “well-designed cycling and walking schemes can bring environmental and health benefits for everyone”, but warned: “It is essential that proper consultation is undertaken with local stakeholders before they are introduced.” The DfT added: “Many schemes were introduced on a trial basis and are expected to be further developed and optimised in response to feedback”.

TfL told us walking and cycling rose by 29 per cent between April and June 2020, and it “worked closely with boroughs to deliver much-needed extra space for walking and cycling, including through temporary cycle lanes, wider pavements and low traffic neighbourhoods.” TfL said “the vast majority” of London’s hundreds of schemes are “working as intended” and that when LTNs need altering, it is “working hard to make the changes work for everyone and we’re supporting them in making adjustments where feedback shows they could improve”.

David Renard from the Local Government Association said that councils are working hard to “tackle congestion, make our air cleaner and improve the quality of life in their communities”. He added that “councils are democratic organisations and continually review all kinds of services and schemes. Being responsive to the needs of our communities is one of councils’ great strengths”.

Case study: what’s it like living in a Low Traffic Neighbourhood?

Eliska Finlay lives in Crystal Palace, south London, where an LTN by Croydon Council diverted traffic away from residential streets and onto larger boundary roads.

“I first discovered this was happening when I saw planters being put down on roads I normally use”, Eliska said. “There was no involvement, no letters sent to affected residents to let them know this was going to happen.” Eliska’s LTN includes a bus gate; cars aren’t allowed through it, but motorists who fail to spot the blue sign advising them that a road they had been previously allowed to use is closed get a £130 fine. Croydon Council predicts these penalties will help it take £4m a year from LTNs, according to an internal report seen by The Daily Telegraph.

“I’m inside the LTN, so I’m benefitting from it, but I feel cut off from parts of my own neighbourhood. People on the other side of the bus gate, my friends, now can’t come down to me if they’re on their way to other places. It has created a mental and physical division.

Every time I drive anywhere I worry I’m going to be stuck in traffic, because on the boundary roads around our LTN the traffic has been horrendous. We’ve got two schools in our LTN, and this has had an incredible impact on teachers.”

Eliska says LTNs have been “extraordinarily divisive” within the community. “The way this has been implemented has pitted neighbour against neighbour. We have to argue with each other about the merits of these policies.”

One issue campaigners have with LTNs is that they create quasi-gated communities and cul de sacs on leafy residential roads, loading larger highways with yet more traffic, increasing both congestion and pollution for people living on main roads that take traffic from closed roads. “It’s completely environmentally unjust”, Eliska says, “because people on the boundary roads will just have to grin and bear it for the greater pleasure, enjoyment and health of the people on the inside.”

A spokesperson from Croydon Council said it had seen “more local families out walking and cycling, which is fantastic” since the LTN was introduced, but the council admitted “some residents have told us they want it removed. We’re hoping the new proposal will address their concerns by removing the planters in the road to give better access for emergency vehicles and local residents – subject to future consultation with residents.”

The council added that fines from LTNs go towards free travel for older and disabled residents, as all such penalties must be put back into local transport provision.  By Graham Hill with huge thanks to Auto Express

A survey of 2,000 UK adults has revealed that 46% of drivers ignore the alerts.

One in five claim they will drive for two or three days before investigating issues.

Two in five ignore them hoping they’ll go off and a third leave them in fear of expensive repair bills.

Motorists are being warned to not ignore illuminated dashboard warning lights in their cars when they return to the road after – or during – the third national lockdown.

A survey of 2,000 UK adults by dealer group Robins & Day revealed that almost half fail to immediately address the alerts, with many neglecting them out of laziness.

And by continuing to use their car when a warning light is telling them not to, motorists are risking causing more damage to their motors and could see repair costs spiral.

The dealer network’s poll found that 46 per cent of adults ignore a warning light on the dashboard of their car.

Of the 2,000 people surveyed, 19 per cent said they would continue to use their vehicle for two or three days with a warning light illuminated before seeking to get the problem sorted.

This is the case even if the warning light is red to signify it is a serious issue that need immediate action.

Amber, orange or other colour lights often mean something needs checking by a garage but the vehicle can still be driven.

When asked why they don’t action the warnings by taking the car to a dealership or garage, two in five (40 per cent) said they disregard it as a fault with the dashboard light itself, expecting it to go off again sooner or later.

Incredibly, over a third (34 per cent) try to push it to the back of their mind over fears of expensive repairs, while another quarter (24 per cent) cast the issue aside out of sheer laziness.

Explaining the results of its study, the dealer group said: ‘Whilst it is completely reasonable not to know every single light on a dashboard, ensuring you have enough knowledge of the basics to help you diagnose a potential problem with your vehicle will prove to be a priceless skill, should an issue arise.

‘However, our study found that just a fifth (21 per cent) of UK drivers could identify the basic warning lights on their dashboard such as ‘low tyre pressure’ and ‘check oil’. Fifteen per cent of those surveyed believed they could identify all of the basic warning lights unaided, if required.

‘Our research also highlighted that three per cent of Brits did not know that their car manual was there to help them to identify any issues with their vehicle.’

You could fail an MOT

While failing to remedy a dashboard warning light can cause a more expensive problem, it can also cause issues if you’re taking your car for an MOT test.

Under current rules, some warning lights can result in an automatic fail.

These include alerts for problems with airbags, the electronic parking brake, electronic stability control, headlight main beam, electronic power steering, brake fluid level or issue with the seatbelt pre-tensioner.

The Law & Your Insurance

Failing to investigate the cause of a dashboard warning light is also illegal. More than one in ten drivers (12%) do not know this and 10% are unaware it can invalidate their insurance policy, according to Robins & Day.  By Graham Hill thanks to This Is Money & Robins &Day

It wasn’t that long ago when I warned diesel car drivers about the threat of particulate filters being stolen because of the precious metal content. Clearly with no exhaust fitted to an electric car we thought that this problem would disappear but it seems that the metal thieves have found an alternative.

The alternative is the copper inside the charging cables. Up until recently the cables were pretty thin as they were used to charge slowly. But with the ultra-fast chargers requiring heavy duty cables the copper content has massively increased. And with few cars having a locking device and being left unattended whilst charging the cables have been easy picking for the scrap metal thieves.

Even though some manufacturers now have locking devices fitted, some as simple as a padlock it would be no problem to cut the cables at each end using insulated heavy duty cutters or banging a nail into the cable to short it and blow the fuse then cut with ordinary cutters.

Of course this will all change when under road chargers appear requiring the driver to simply park over the charge pad – like a wireless charger to charge a mobile phone. But whilst tests have been very successful these chargers are some way away. In the meantime here is one driver’s experience:

 Last night I had my type 2 cable stolen from a public charge point in Manchester centre (UK) I was also issued with a £70 fine for using a electric parking space without charging.

Here’s the weird bit:

I was charging until 21:07.17 at which point I was notified my charging was interrupted. I have the charge logs from the supplier (ChargeYourCar) to authenticate this time.

The ticket for parking without charging was issued at 21:09. This means that the parking attendant wrote down my details (reg, model, colour) within 100 seconds of my cable being stolen/charging stopping.

I’ve reported the theft to the police but they say they’re unable to do anything. I’m going to go down later and see if anywhere has captured those 100 seconds on CCTV.

How is this possible? I was a 20 minutes walk away from the car at the time of the theft. I thought that once a charge was started both ends of the cable were locked. The charge started at 17:41 and continued with no problems until the cable was stolen at 21:07.

Could someone use a clone of a supercharger button (I know they unlock / open charge ports on every Tesla) to unlock and steal the cable? The cable was about £250 I think.

The time between the cable theft and me receiving a ticket sees suspiciously short (100 seconds) could the parking attendant be responsible? Did they tip off a friend to come and steal it?

The police mentioned it had happened a few times recently. The firm issuing the ticket was Indigo Parking on behalf of Salford City Council. By Graham Hill thanks to Reddit

It should come as no surprise to anyone in the industry that another car manufacturer has been accused of using emissions defeat devices to fool the emissions tests. I was one of the first to say that when VW were found to be using such devices that the problem goes industrywide. It was common knowledge that this was going on, it was just a matter of time before they were found out.

It all started years ago when manufacturers would tape up car doors and remove trim and even door mirrors to reduce drag when checking fuel consumption. They did similar things when emission rules were introduced but when inspectors finally started to check the tests they had to come up with something more creative.

On to the report:

Vauxhall is the latest manufacturer to face claims that some of its diesel engines were fitted with emissions ‘cheating’ devices or software.

It follows similar accusations against Mercedes-Benz, Fiat-Chrysler and the Renault-Nissan alliance, in the wake of the Volkswagen ‘dieselgate’ scandal.

Law firm Milberg London says it is launching a case against Vauxhall for drivers who bought or leased certain models manufactured between 2009 and 2019.

A statement issued by the car maker said: “Vauxhall Motors is not aware of any such claim and rejects any accusation of using illegal defeat devices. Our vehicles meet the applicable regulations.”

More than a million people could receive compensation if the claim is successful.

Edward Cardington, partner at Milberg London LLP and lead lawyer for the Vauxhall Pay Up Campaign, said: “The Vauxhall Pay Up campaign has set out to prove that Vauxhall cheated both the emissions tests and hardworking British drivers.

“Motorists were promised a combination of low environmental impact and high driving performance that appears to have been impossible in real driving conditions. Put simply, clean diesel looks like a myth and Vauxhall’s cars did not provide the performance drivers paid for.”

The Vauxhall Pay Up campaign will claim under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations. These laws state that customers who were sold products with misleading information could receive anything between 25% and 75% of the cost of the product they purchased in compensation.

Potentially affected models highlighted by Milberg London include diesel versions of the following Vauxhall models: Astra, Cascada, Corsa, Insignia, Mokka, Movano and Zafira. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

RAC patrols attended almost 1,500 call-outs in the last three months of 2020 for pothole related breakdowns, despite reduced traffic volumes as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Analysis of fourth quarter RAC breakdowns for National Pothole Day reveals there were 1,461 call-outs for damaged shock absorbers, broken suspension springs and distorted wheels reveals, representing nearly 1% (0.9%) of all RAC attendances.

While the pothole proportion of all RAC breakdowns is down on the previous quarter, it is identical to the same period in 2019 and slightly higher than 2018 (0.8%). The RAC says this is concerning given the lower traffic volumes brought about by coronavirus travel restrictions as in theory, less traffic should mean less damage to road surfaces.

Looking across the UK, the South East saw the largest number of vehicle problems most likely to be caused by potholes at 242 – equating to 17% of all the pothole-related call-outs dealt with by the RAC’s expert local patrols.

While this could be attributed to the region being more densely populated, this is unlikely to be the case for the South West which saw 12% of all the RAC’s pothole breakdowns (173), almost the same number as the North West (170).

The RAC’s Pothole Index, which is a long-term indicator of the health of the UK’s roads available, suggests the overall standard of road surfaces has been improving since the start of 2019. Having begun at 1.0 in 2006, the index currently stands at 1.44 which means drivers are nearly one and a half times as likely to experience damage caused by a pothole as they were 15 years ago.

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said: “While the actual number of pothole-related call-outs our patrols have attended is down significantly compared to the same time in 2019 due to lower traffic volumes in the pandemic, they account for the same proportion (0.9%) of all RAC rescues which clearly demonstrates there are still far too many poorly maintained roads.

“We realise council budgets are under incredible pressure due to the coronavirus, but we badly need the Government to recognise the significance of local roads and take a fresh look at how to fund them.

“The Government’s approach of allocating funding to councils from various pots on an annual basis means authorities are always having to play catch-up by fixing potholes rather than focusing on preventative maintenance. We would prefer to see them make five-year funding settlements which would allow councils to make longer-term plans for their roads.

This could be funded by introducing a similar scheme to the National Roads Fund which ringfences money paid in vehicle excise duty by road users in England for the upkeep of major roads.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Here Technologies has unveiled a new electric vehicle (EV) routing feature aimed at delivering drivers the most optimal route, including charging time.

The new EV Routing feature takes into account topography, road geometry, real-time traffic information and traffic patterns, while planning trips.

Here Technologies says It can be synced to the consumption model of the vehicle and can be adjusted to different driving styles, loads or weather conditions.

Jussi Koski, VP product management at Here Technologies, said: “EV Routing does more than show you the way to a charging station.

“It provides the most optimal route, including charging times, while taking into account static and dynamic data such as charging speed or real-time traffic conditions.

“Not only is EV Routing based on a wide range of parameters, it can also be customised. With EV Routing, Here goes beyond removing range anxiety and makes EV driving a truly personalised experience.”

EV Routing leverages Here EV Charge Points, a database that includes vehicle brand, real-time availability of charging stations, subscription and pricing information. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News