The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Thatcham Research and Euro NCAP have assessed the latest driver assistance systems to ensure users are fully aware of their capabilities.

Reports of accidents where drivers have misused these systems are becoming a regular topic for the media and these new gradings are designed to inform drivers of the performance, and most importantly, the limitations of Assisted Driving systems.

“The systems that are currently allowed on our roads are there to assist the driver – but do not replace them,” said Matthew Avery, Thatcham’s director of research. “Unfortunately, there are motorists that believe they can purchase a self-driving car today.

This is a dangerous misconception that sees too much control handed to vehicles that are not ready to cope with all situations.

“Clarity is therefore required to make sure drivers understand the capability and performance of current assisted systems. It’s crucial today’s technology is adopted safely before we take the next step on the road to automation. There are safety and insurance implications that must be considered seriously.”

Ten vehicles have been initially assessed, including the Tesla Model 3, BMW 3 Series and Mercedes GLE.

The testing looked at how effective the systems control the car, how the carmaker communicates the capability and functionality of the systems and how well the car protects the driver in an emergency.

Mercedes scored the highest number of points across the three categories, with its GLE model receiving a ‘very good’ rating. The BMW 3 Series and Audi Q8 also scored top marks.

The Ford Kuga’s results showed a ‘good’ grading is possible for a mid-class vehicle, thanks to its combination of Vehicle Assistance and Safety Back-up. The entry-level Renault Clio and Peugeot 2008 offer effective systems, but lack emergency assist capability which would have boosted their grading. 

The Tesla Model 3 was top scorer in the vehicle assistance and safety back-up assessments, but was the lowest scorer for driver engagement, resulting in a ‘moderate’ grading. 

“The first batch of results show some car makers have developed robust assisted driving systems and that’s good to see. But there are also significant gaps in capability on other vehicles,” Avery explained. 

 

“The Tesla Model 3 was the best for vehicle assistance and safety back-up. But lost ground for over selling what its ‘Autopilot’ system is capable of, while actively discouraging drivers from engaging when behind the wheel. 

“Tesla should however be recognised for its ability to update vehicles ‘Over the Air’. Two years ago, it’s safety back up results would not have been market leading. This unique capability has seen it move the safety game on, across its whole fleet of vehicles.”

Assisted Driving Systems test results: 

Position	Car	Vehicle Assistance	Driver Engagement	Safety Back-up	Rating
1	Mercedes GLE	86	85	89	174 / very good
2	BMW 3-Series	82	83	90	172 / very good
3	Audi Q8	83	78	84	162 / very good
4	Ford Kuga	66	73	86	152 / good
5	VW Passat	76	79	61	137 / moderate
6	Tesla Model 3	87	36	95	131 / moderate
7	Nissan Juke	52	70	72	124 / moderate
8	Volvo V60	71	78	49	120 / moderate
9	Renault Clio	62	69	43	105 / entry
10	Peugeot 2008	61	74	40	101 / entry

Martin Milliner, claims director at Liverpool Victoria General Insurance, said: “Assisted driving systems are not all the same and whilst they are becoming commonplace in new vehicles, they are still at an embryonic stage in terms of driver awareness and understanding.

The new independent grading system from Thatcham and Euro NCAP will bust the myths around driverless cars and give UK drivers a lens through which to make informed car buying choices; hopefully leading to fewer accidents and deaths on our roads.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

More than 8,000 fatal and serious injuries could be prevented over the next 20 years if an investment package of £1.2 billion was made, says the Road Safety Foundation and Ageas.

The funding would improve around 3,000 miles of roads and would also boost the UK’s economic recovery and save society almost £4.4bn over the same period, according to a report published today by the organisation.

Dr Suzy Charman, executive director of the Road Safety Foundation and author of the study, said: “This 20th annual report shows that less than 1% of roads were significantly improved between 2013-2015 and 2016-2018.

“This report identifies an investment package of £1.2bn… with great returns: every £1 invested should benefit society by an average of around £3.60.

“We’ve already demonstrated that infrastructure safety measures can be developed and implemented very quickly, providing jobs and saving lives.

“At a time when we need to boost our economic recovery and protect the NHS, what better way of saving our society an estimated £4.4 billion over the next 20 years. Let’s move forward and save lives by improving these roads.”

The ‘Looking Back – Moving Forward’ document reports that:

• 60% of all deaths are concentrated on 13% of Britain’s roads
• There were significant reductions in the number of fatal and serious crashes on 22 routes between 2013-2015 and 2016-2018; the total number of fatal and serious crashes on these 400km of road fell by two-thirds from 251 to 86, with an estimated Net Present Value of £351m over 20 years
• 765km of 38 persistently higher risk rural routes have been the location of more than 1,400 fatal and serious crashes between 2013 and 2018. The value to society of preventing these would have been almost £700 million.

The data from the report has been used to update the interactive ‘Dangerous Roads Map’.

This reveals Britain’s riskiest roads and highlights where targeted investment could save lives.

In the foreword to the report, Lord Whitty, chair of the Road Safety Foundation, said: “British progress has depended largely on rising European vehicle standards.

“Similar advancements have not been seen in infrastructure safety.”

Whitty praised the government’s Safer Roads Fund, launched in 2016, as an influential step.

He added: “Systemic management of infrastructure risk is now required by law elsewhere in Europe.

“Highways England and Transport for London have set ambitions that no-one should be hurt on their networks by 2040 but must now target infrastructure risks systemically along busy routes.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Speed limits on parts of four motorways are to be cut before October in a trial to reduce pollution.

Highways England said the limit will be reduced from 70mph to 60mph in areas that have seen higher than recommended levels of nitrogen dioxide.

The reduced speed limit will be introduced on M6 junctions 6 to 7 by Witton, M1 junctions 33 to 34 by Rotherham, M602 junctions 1 to 3 by Eccles and M5 1 to 2 by Oldbury.

Each locations is up to 4.5 miles long and the new speed limits will be operational 24 hours a day.

The reduced speed limits will be assessed after 12 months to see if they are having an impact, or if the air quality level is compliant.

Ivan Le Fevre, head of environment at Highways England told the BBC: “Ultimately the air quality challenge will be solved ‘at the tailpipe’ by vehicle manufacturers and changes in vehicle use.

“Until this happens we will continue our extensive programme of pioneering research and solutions.”

Recent Department for Transport figures show the proportion of cars sticking to the speed limit is at its highest on 60mph roads.

The data measures speed and compliance at sites where the road conditions are free-flowing, for example roads with no junctions, sharp bends, speed enforcement cameras or other traffic calming measures.

In 2019, 50% of cars were found to exceed the speed limit on motorways, 54% on 30mph roads and just 9% where limits were 60mph.

The DfT says the statistics provide insights into speeds at which drivers choose to travel when free to do so, but are not estimates of average speeds across the whole network.

It notes that the average car speeds under free flow conditions were close to the speed limit on motorways (69mph) and 30mph roads (31mph) – and under the speed limit on 60mph roads (50mph).  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Road safety charity Brake has welcomed the Government move to introduce life sentences for killer drivers.

The Ministry of Justice originally pledged to introduce the punishment in 2017 and it will form part of major sentencing reforms to be unveiled by the Lord Chancellor in a white paper this week.

Joshua Harris, director of campaigns for Brake, said the charity has long advocated for an overhaul of UK road law to deliver justice for victims and to help keep roads free from dangerous drivers.

He added: “Crash victims have waited three long years for this announcement. Road crime is real crime and it is high-time that the Government, and the law, recognised this.

“Years of Government inaction have added to the suffering of road victims who have not been delivered the justice they, and their loved ones, deserve.

“The Government must now implement these tougher sentences as first priority, delivering on their overdue promise to road crash victims, and then urgently initiate a review of the flawed legal framework for road justice.

“Driving is a privilege not a right and yet our flawed legal system continues to allow convicted dangerous drivers on the roads where they can endanger others.

“We all want safer roads but we will only achieve this if the law treats road crime with the seriousness it deserves.”

The measures around driving include plans to:

• increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life

• increase the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years to life

• create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.

Paul Loughlin, senior associate solicitor at Stephensons, said:“The impact of dangerous and careless driving often has far reaching consequences, not only for those involved but also for their families and friends.

“Much of the criticism surrounding legislation in this area is that it doesn’t provide sufficient justice for those who are killed as a result of dangerous driving, or those seriously injured as a result.

“These proposals would transform the sentencing guidelines for this offence and go a long way to redress the balance for victims.

“On the flip side, we have often seen prosecutors taking a harder line in cases where there has been a serious injury and the driving standard would ordinarily be considered to be ‘careless’ rather than ‘dangerous’.

“The absence of the ability to charge with causing serious injury through careless driving has seen inconsistent charging decisions being made to plug a gap.

“There are clear examples of cases being ‘bumped up’ from a straight forward careless driving charge to the more serious charge of causing serious injury through dangerous driving with more emphasis being placed on the extent of the injury caused, irrespective of the fact that the standard of driving would ordinarily be considered to be ‘careless’.

“The introduction of this new offence should more suitably plug that gap and ensure more appropriate charges being laid for this type of offence.”

Department for Transport figures show 1,748 people were killed on the roads of Great Britain last year, a figure which has flatlined since 2012 when 1,754 people were killed. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Highways England has launched a new anti-tailgating campaign to encourage drivers to keep a safe distance from the car in front.

The company is using the well-known Space Invader video game character to alert drivers to the anti-social nature and risks of tailgating, and to give the message: Stay safe, stay back.

Mark Byard, director of Health, Safety and Wellbeing at Highways England, said: “We’ve got used to social distancing during the pandemic. Now we’re reminding you to also keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front.

“Good drivers leave plenty of safe space for themselves and others. But driving too close is dangerous, can be intimidating and can cause collisions that could be avoided.

“We want everyone to travel safely, so we can all get home safe and well. Our advice is simple: stay safe, stay back.”

Tailgating is a factor in around one in eight casualties on England’s motorways and major A roads, with more than 130 people killed or seriously injured in incidents involving people driving too close in 2018.

While a small minority of tailgating is deliberate, Highways England says most is unintentional by drivers who are simply unaware they are dangerously invading someone else’s space.

And a survey for Highways England found that while more than a quarter of drivers admitted to tailgating, nearly nine in 10 people say they have either been tailgated or seen it.

The Highway Code states that drivers should allow at least a two second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic, and the gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased further on icy roads or when visibility is poor. Dependant on the vehicle type, a greater distance may be necessary.

Tailgating is an offence of driving without due care and attention, carrying a minimum £100 fine and penalty points and in some cases more severe penalties or court appearance. But more so, it is unsafe, and a factor in around one in eight road casualties.

Katie Shephard, corporate partnership manager at Brake, added: “Brake is pleased to support the campaign Highways England are running to raise awareness about the dangers of tailgating.  We work with families affected by road crashes and know first-hand the vital importance of all drivers taking care and being safe on the road.”

The campaign is also supported by the Professional Recovery Operators Federation (PROF).

Further results from the survey show more than two thirds of people think tailgating is a serious problem and that more can be done to tackle poor driver behaviour, with almost 80% agreeing that they would favour a clampdown on drivers who drive too close to the vehicle in front.

If you are tailgated, Highways England advises that you avoid speeding up, slowing down or staring in the rear-view mirror. It says reduce the risk to yourself by driving normally, signalling clearly and allowing people to overtake. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The possibilities of connected consumer vehicles are wide—and maybe a bit overwhelming. How can all these needs and wants be met at the same time?

One of the key challenges, if we are to move to driverless cars, is to enable the car to ‘think’. Whilst we may not be able to get a computer to think we can increase the speed of transfer and processing of data in order for the car to decide on a course of action without the involvement of a human brain.

So with the help of Ericcson let’s see how 5G can move the industry further.

5G Is Unbelievably Fast

Let’s start with the simple facts first: from a peak speed perspective, 5G is 100 times faster than 4G. This means that during the time it took to download just one piece of data with 4G the same could have been downloaded 100 times over a 5G network.

 You can just imagine how this speed is important for a connected car when it comes to the amount of data that will need to be shared.

According to Dr. Joy Laskar, CTO of Maja Systems, future autonomous cars will generate nearly 2 petabits of data, which is equivalent of 2 million gigabits. “With an advanced Wi-Fi connection, it will take 230 days to transfer a week-worth of data from a self-driving car,” Laskar said.

With 5G, that time would go from 230 days to just over 2 days.

Lower latency

5G also means low latency, as in a matter of milliseconds.

Latency is the amount of time it takes to send information from one point to another. We encounter it everyday when we drive, and make a decision to break suddenly: latency is the amount of time between our brain sends the instruction to our foot to push down on the brake in this example.

When it comes to networks, we usually talk about the difference between the 20 milliseconds of our current 4G networks to the 1-5 milliseconds of the 5G network.

However, there’s even a larger difference when it comes to self-driving cars.

Human reaction speed is a bit above 200 milliseconds, leading to accidents every day. 5G’s 5 millisecond latency is practically real-time, which can be used to provide the user with additional safety information before it is visible, for example roadworks, fast moving emergency vehicles and visually hidden pedestrians about to cross the street.

These cooperative Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) will help the driver to drive safely and avoid accidents.

5G’s increased reliability

Reliable communication means guaranteed delivery of time-critical information. For example, for remotely driving an autonomous vehicle in real-time in case its autonomous function fails.

There is no other alternative than cellular networks for enabling such services. 5G cellular technology is designed from day one for ultra-reliable communication with low latency to enable complex machine centric use cases, including autonomous cars in dense urban as well as high speed scenarios.

We expect adoption of fully autonomous capabilities in limited areas initially leveraging 5G signal coverage, with long-term evolution towards fully autonomous transport eco-system for maximizing safety, efficiency, and sustainability.

Exciting new case stories & innovation

Thanks to these three elements—increased speed, lower latency, and increased reliability—a whole new generation of exciting use cases can be unlocked.

In Europe, the 5GCAR project, led by Ericsson, is helping to develop an overall 5G system architecture.

As part of their work, they identified a number of new use cases that need 5G to unlock the future of transportation, from lane merge coordination to long range sensor sharing and increased protection for pedestrians.

Industry 4.0

5G won’t just make connecting cars easier: it will make manufacturing cars easier as well.

5G is about to change manufacturing as we know it through secure and almost real-time connectivity that will result in transformative productivity, speed and efficiency improvements. The car industry will be among the first to benefit.

But don’t just take our word for it: ask Mercedes-Benz. We recently teamed up with Telefónica Germany to enable 5G car production via a private 5G network for Mercedes-Benz at the company’s Sindelfingen plant in southern Germany.

Jörg Burzer, Member of the Divisional Board of Management of Mercedes-Benz Cars, Production and Supply Chain, said: “With the installation of a local 5G network, the networking of all production systems and machines in the Mercedes-Benz Cars factories will become even smarter and more efficient in the future. This opens up completely new production opportunities.”

So why should you care about 5G? Well, 5G connectivity has the potential to allow accident-free, stress-free and emission-free driving…and we think that’s a future we can all be excited about.  By Graham Hill Thanks To Ericcson

The Government has launched a consultation to decide how it will stop vehicles from blocking pavements.

It outlines three options: improving the traffic regulation order process to make it easier for councils to prohibit pavement parking in their areas, giving councils powers to fine drivers who park on paths, and a London-style nationwide ban on pavement parking.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps announced the plans in March. The proposals are designed to improve the lives of people with mobility or sight impairments, as well as parents with prams who may be forced into the road to get around parked cars.

Shapps said: “Parking on pavements means wheelchair users, visually impaired people and parents with push chairs can be forced into the road, which is not only dangerous, but discourages people from making journeys.

“A key part of our green, post-Covid recovery will be encouraging more people to choose active travel, such as walking, so it is vital that we make the nation’s pavements accessible for everyone.”

Recent research from the charity Guide Dogs shows that 32% of people with vision impairments and 48% of wheelchair users were less willing to go out on their own because of pavement parking, decreasing independence and contributing towards isolation.

In 2019 the Department for Transport concluded a review which looked at the problems caused by pavement parking, the effectiveness of legislation, and the case for reform.

It found that pavement parking was problematic for 95% of respondents who are visually impaired and 98% of wheelchair users.

The Transport Select Committee also recently conducted an inquiry into the issue, with the commitment to consult on proposals forming a key part of the Government’s response to its findings.

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said: “Blocking pavements impacts most on those with disabilities and those pushing buggies and creates unnecessary danger for pedestrians. In short, nobody should be forced into stepping into the road to get around a vehicle that has taken up pavement space, so the Government is right to explore giving local authorities additional powers to enforce this types of selfish parking.

“However, outlawing pavement parking as a whole is more complex because not all streets in the UK are the same. For example, some drivers will put a tyre up the kerb on a narrow residential street to avoid restricting road access to other vehicles while still allowing plenty of space for pedestrian access. Therefore better guidance and a definition of what is and isn’t appropriate would be a more practical solution, rather than an outright ban.”

The consulation can be viewed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/managing-pavement-parking?s=03

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Government has launched a consultation that could lead to the introduction of cars with Level 3 autonomous driving capabilities by next year.

The Call for Evidence will look at the Automated Lane Keeping System (ALKS) –  an automated system which can control the steering, brakes and acceleration of the vehicle (currently at low speeds of up to 37mph), keeping it in lane.

This technology is designed to enable drivers – for the first time ever – to delegate the task of driving to the vehicle in certain situations, such as traffic jams.

Audi developed the technology for its A8 model, as ‘Traffic Jam Pilot’, and planned to introduce it once legislation allowed, but has since confirmed that it won’t be offered on the current model.

When activated, the system keeps the vehicle within its lane, controlling its movements for extended periods of time without the driver needing to do anything. The driver must be ready and able to resume driving control when prompted by the vehicle, however.

The Government is seeking views from industry on the role of the driver and proposed rules on the use of this system to pave the way towards introducing it safely in Great Britain, within the current legal framework.

The Call for Evidence will ask whether vehicles using this technology should be legally defined as an automated vehicle, which would mean the technology provider would be responsible for the safety of the vehicle when the system is engaged, rather than the driver.

It also seeks views on Government proposals to allow the safe use of this system on British roads at speeds of up to 70mph, where technology allows.

Transport Minister Rachel Maclean said: “Automated technology could make driving safer, smoother and easier for motorists and the UK should be the first country to see these benefits, attracting manufacturers to develop and test new technologies.

“The UK’s work in this area is world leading and the results from this Call for Evidence could be a significant step forward for this exciting technology.”

Following the approval of ALKS Regulation in June 2020 by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) – of which the UK is a member – the technology is likely to be available in cars entering the UK market from Spring 2021.

The Government is acting now to ensure that regulation is ready where necessary for its introduction.

Edmund King, AA president, added: “Over the last fifty years leading edge in-car technology from seat belts to airbags and ABS has helped to save thousands of lives.

“The Government is right to be consulting on the latest collision-avoidance system which has the potential to make our roads even safer in the future.”

Mike Hawes, SMMT chief executive, said: “Automated technologies for vehicles, of which automated lane keeping is the latest, will be life-changing, making our journeys safer and smoother than ever before and helping prevent some 47,000 serious accidents and save 3,900 lives over the next decade.

“This advanced technology is ready for roll out in new models from as early as 2021, so today’s announcement is a welcome step in preparing the UK for its use, so we can be among the first to grasp the benefits of this road safety revolution.”

In late 2020, the Government plans to launch a public consultation on the detail of any changes to legislation and the Highway Code that are proposed, which will include a summary of responses to this Call for Evidence. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

A review by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) has cast doubt on whether police forces are doing enough to monitor and improve road safety.

The Department of Transport (DfT) have estimated that the national cost of all road traffic collisions is £36 billion per annum.

Since 1979, whilst the numbers killed in road accidents in England and Wales had been reducing, there have been recent increases.

In 2013 the number of deaths was 1541, but this had increased to 1624 by 2018, with an additional 23,931 serious accidents where often life changing injuries were suffered.

It is accepted that one effective measure for maintaining road safety is the placement of speed enforcement cameras.

Whilst some police forces have adopted parts of the national roads policing strategy, some were unable to provide any evidence a strategy was in place to reduce deaths and serious collisions on roads.

Most forces were unable to demonstrate that placement of cameras was based on consideration of the causes of serious collisions on roads in their area.

Whilst police forces do not receive funds from fines and fixed penalties, they can recover costs for administration and provision of educational schemes.

Deployment of speed cameras is mainly carried out by road safety partnerships.

The report found that this has resulted in safety partnerships preventing use of fixed cameras in areas where the safety partnership has deployed mobile speed enforcement cameras.

Not surprisingly, this has raised suspicion with police officers that the focus of activity for use of speed enforcement cameras was influenced more by increasing revenue than by reducing serious accidents in areas where a higher incidence of collisions was found to exist.

It should be noted, the number of dedicated road policing officers has decreased.

Spending on road policing has fallen by 34% in England and Wales from 2012/13 to 2019/20.

This has been found to have resulted in enforcement action lacking focus and appropriate evaluation of outcomes.

The report makes a number of recommendations and encourages police forces to share best practice on analysis of vulnerable road users, repeat offenders, or the causes of collisions.

It was also recommended that roads policing training should be standardised and accredited.

The report noted that whilst motorcyclists make up only 0.8% of traffic, they make up 26% of those killed or seriously injured.

With a likely significant increase in the number of cyclists using the road network, given one of the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever that road safety is given a high priority by police forces and road safety partnerships. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Local authorities in London and Cardiff have raised £58.2 million from drivers committing moving traffic offences in just one year, with the same powers due to be rolled out to other councils.

Moving traffic offences include stopping on a yellow box junction, making an illegal turn or driving down a ‘no entry’ road.

The only local authorities that currently have the power to enforce these offences in England and Wales are London boroughs and Cardiff Council.

Figures obtained via a Freedom of Information request suggest they collected £58.2m in penalty charge notices (PCNs) in 2018/19 – 25% (£11.5m) more than in 2016/17 (£46.7m).

The Department for Transport (DfT) confirmed on July 27 that it plans to extend these enforcement powers to all local authorities in England and Wales.

Currently, local authorities outside of London and Cardiff only have powers to enforce bus lane contraventions. 

RAC head of roads policy, Nicholas Lyes, said: “It’s plain for all to see that London boroughs, TfL and Cardiff are generating phenomenal sums of money from the enforcement of moving traffic offences.”

In 2016/17, councils issued 752,871 PCNs, rising to 1,007,405 in 2018/19 which equates to a 34% rise.

Yellow box junctions were the biggest revenue generator, bringing in £31.4m in 2018/19 compared to £22.3m for ‘no turn’ offences and £4.4m for ‘no entry’ contraventions.

Looking at Cardiff alone, nearly four times as many PCNs were issued in 2018/19 compared to 2016/17 (74,142 compared to 19,080) translating to a £1.8m hike in revenue (£593,160 to £2.4m – 313%).

The most profitable offences for Cardiff are ‘no turns’ yielding £1.4m in contrast to £826,424 for yellow box junctions and £182,782 for ‘no entry’ offences.

Of the London boroughs which provided data to the RAC a total of 933,263 PCNs were issued in 2018/19, 27% more than two years ago (733,791). This, however, only translated to a 21% increase in revenues (£46.1m to £55.7m).

Yellow box junctions

Of the authorities which benefitted the most from the enforcement of yellow box junctions, Transport for London (TfL) topped the table with a revenue of nearly £10m (£9,969,545 – 135,923 PCNs) in 2018/19.

But in terms of single councils, Hammersmith and Fulham came out top with a £3.5m yellow box revenue pot (from 53,576 PCNs) generated from 16 enforced junctions out of 23 in its area – £1.1m ahead of its nearest rival Redbridge on £2.4m (34,782 PCNs from 14 enforced junctions out of a total of 35).

Merton, the only other council to pocket more than £2m in yellow box penalties, was third on £2.2m (31,081 PCNs from 27 enforced junctions, no overall total of junctions available).

In terms of average revenues per enforced junction, Westminster recorded the highest figure with a single junction generating £333,295 from 4,595 PCNs.

Hammersmith and Fulham had the second largest average on £223,472 (£3.5m from 16 enforced junctions) and Richmond had the second largest average revenue with £156,117.

TfL has 399 yellow box junctions but declined to disclose how many are enforced.

No turn offences

Three authorities topped £2m in revenue from ‘no turn’ offences with Ealing even managing to outdo TfL with a revenue of £2.6m (from 44,612 PCNs) versus £2m (£2,093,651, from 28,978 PCNs). Hackney had the third highest total on £1,888,845.

No entry offences

Harrow was top for ‘no entry’ offences with a revenue of £549,785 followed by Southwark on £420,760 and Islington on £357,265.

Lyes said: “The vast majority of drivers we’ve surveyed agree that those who stop on yellow boxes, make illegal turns or go through ‘no entry’ signs need to be penalised, but when it comes to extending powers to other councils many are concerned, with 68% thinking local authorities will rush to install cameras to generate additional revenue.

“Four in 10 drivers (39%) also believe that road layouts and signage will be made deliberately confusing to increase the number of PCNs issued.

“Clearly, the priority for enforcement should be to improve road safety and reduce congestion.”

The DfT’s decision to extend the same enforcement powers to other local authorities, however, Lyes believes should come with guidance setting out where enforcement should be targeted and the types of signs that must be used to make drivers aware that enforcement cameras are operating, and for what type of moving traffic offence.

“It should also make clear the circumstances in which a PCN can be appealed and where mitigating circumstances may apply such as stopping in a yellow box to allow an emergency services vehicle to go by,” continued Lyes.

“We welcome proposals that first offenders are sent a warning letter before subsequent penalties apply. This is particularly important where changes are made to urban road layouts. What we do not want is this being seen by cash-strapped local authorities as a way to generate revenue.

“In addition, we would urge local authorities to publish annual reports of moving traffic offence receipts by type and by junction.

“We would also encourage them to monitor hot spots where an unusually high proportion of PCNs are issued as this is more than likely a clear indication of a problem with signage or road layout.”

Tables

Key: NA – Not available; DNE – Does not enforce; DNR – Did not respond

Summary – all authorities in England and Wales with power to enforce moving traffic offences
All – London boroughs & Cardiff	PCNs – 16/17	PCNs 17/18	PCNs 18/19	Revenues 16/17	Revenues 17/18	Revenues 18/19
Box junctions	404,618	455,129	510,065	£25,893,253	£28,943,627	£31,410,486
No turns	290,094	384,356	419,801	£17,119,308	£21,908,787	£22,377,326
No entry	58,159	62,490	77,539	£3,725,794	£3,563,781	£4,453,518
Total	752,871	901,975	1,007,405	£46,738,355	£54,416,195	£58,241,330
Change – year-on-year		149,104	105,430		£7,677,840	£3,825,135
			+12%			+7%
Change 16/17 to 18/19			254,534			£11,502,975
			+34%			+25%

Cardiff	PCNs – 16/17	PCNs 17/18	PCNs 18/19	Revenues 16/17	Revenues 17/18	Revenues 18/19
Box junctions	4,163	8,165	23,752	£150,876	£296,030	£826,424
No turns	14,917	42,862	44,747	£442,284	£1,388,241	£1,438,732
No entry	0	4,474	5,643	£0	£160,292	£182,782
Total	19,080	55,501	74,142	£593,160	£1,844,563	£2,447,938
Change – year-on-year		36,421	18,641		£1,251,403	£603,375
			+34%			+33%
Change 16/17 to 18/19			55,062			£1,854,778
			+289%			+313%

London boroughs	PCNs – 16/17	PCNs 17/18	PCNs 18/19	Revenues 16/17	Revenues 17/18	Revenues 18/19
Box junctions	400,455	446,964	486,313	£25,742,377	£28,647,597	£30,584,062
No turns	275,177	341,494	375,054	£16,677,024	£20,520,546	£20,938,594
No entry	58,159	58,016	71,896	£3,725,794	£3,403,489	£4,270,736
Total	733,791	846,474	933,263	£46,145,195	£52,571,632	£55,793,392
Change – year-on-year		112,683	86,789		£6,426,437	£3,221,760
			+10%			+6%
Change 16/17 to 18/19			199,472			£9,648,197
			+27%			+21%

Box junctions PCNs ranked by 18/19
Rank	Council / Authority	PCNs – 16/17	PCNs 17/18	PCNs 18/19
1	Transport for London	108,151	122,991	135,923
2	Hammersmith and Fulham	65,367	64,316	53,576
3	Barnet	28,530	40,399	38,860
4	Waltham Forest	34,472	23,851	35,423
5	Redbridge	11,723	27,937	34,782
6	Merton	32,589	39,679	31,081
7	Cardiff	4,163	8,165	23,752
8	Brent	12,600	18,032	20,207
9	Islington	2,423	9,392	15,343
10	Wandsworth	1,440	5,517	15,321
11	Richmond	2,995	4,526	15,238
12	Barking & Dagenham	5,219	4,461	12,903
13	Enfield	16,903	10,958	11,018
14	Kingston upon Thames	17,245	15,665	9,654
15	Bexley	11,416	9,079	9,609
16	Ealing	7,126	9,229	9,565
17	Haringey	10,036	13,380	9,205
18	Camden	6,957	5,889	7,407
19	Hounslow	13,442	8,077	7,051
20	Lambeth	1,077	1,927	5,230
21	Westminster	6,946	6,416	4,595
22	Hackney	11	3,217	2,609
23	Harrow	1,835	1,220	1,161
24	Southwark	1,208	804	552
25	City of London	744	2	0
	Sutton	0	0	0
	Croydon	DNR	DNR	DNR
	Newham	DNR	DNR	DNR
	Bromley	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Greenwich	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Havering	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Hillingdon	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Kensington and Chelsea	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Lewisham	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Tower Hamlets	DNE	DNE	DNE
	TOTAL	404,618	455,129	510,065
	Change – year-on-year		50,511	54,936
	Change 16/17 to 18/19			105,447

Box junctions revenue ranked by 18/19
Rank	Council / Authority	Revenues 16/17	Revenues 17/18	Revenues 18/19	Number of Box junctions	Numbers currently enforced	Numbers enforced in 18/19
1	Transport for London	£7,622,149	£8,895,998	£9,969,545	399	NA	NA
2	Hammersmith and Fulham	£4,572,143	£4,518,388	£3,575,565	23	16	16
3	Redbridge	£833,095	£1,933,623	£2,463,172	35	18	14
4	Merton	£2,366,302	£2,885,817	£2,253,219	NA	23	27
5	Waltham Forest	£2,337,874	£1,587,932	£1,880,431	27	17	17
6	Brent	£864,875	£1,238,439	£1,241,202	116	59	59
7	Richmond	£156,978	£549,265	£1,092,821	14	7	10
8	Wandsworth	£87,065	£373,946	£982,139	22	11	11
9	Islington	£150,343	£607,728	£979,817	40	37	37
10	Barking & Dagenham	£337,624	£315,083	£917,360	NA	13	13
11	Cardiff	£150,876	£296,030	£826,424	N/A	12	11
12	Kingston upon Thames	£1,119,590	£977,429	£719,618	28	8	5
13	Enfield	£1,063,083	£692,022	£688,123	43	6	6
14	Bexley	£780,377	£606,236	£649,193	11	7	7
15	Haringey	£696,022	£893,305	£606,541	45	23	23
16	Ealing	£496,960	£611,529	£568,492	NA	9	NA
17	Camden	£472,327	£416,741	£543,354	55	6	6
18	Hounslow	£973,161	£576,374	£466,654	NA	NA	26
19	Lambeth	£73,550	£125,003	£356,874	NA	4	8
20	Westminster	£483,011	£475,462	£333,295	NA	1	1
21	Hackney	£195	£229,951	£179,421	23	1	2
22	Harrow	£127,994.93	£81,641.27	£77,154.11	18	5	8
23	Southwark	£84,230	£55,554	£40,073	36	4	4
24	City of London	£43,429	£130	£0	5	0	0
	Sutton	£0	£0	£0	5	1	0
	Barnet	NA	NA	NA	22	17	17
	TOTAL	£25,893,253	£28,943,627	£31,410,486	945	288	311
	Change – year-on-year		£3,050,374	£2,466,859
	Change 16/17 to 18/19			£5,517,233

‘No turn’ PCNs ranked by 18/19
Rank	Council / Authority	PCNs – 16/17	PCNs 17/18	PCNs 18/19
1	Barnet	21,558	36,745	53,297
2	Cardiff	14,917	42,862	44,747
3	Ealing	43,985	41,716	44,612
4	Hackney	0	2,194	31,327
5	Waltham Forest	23,222	25,757	29,052
6	Havering	4,486	26,080	29,012
7	Transport for London	14,117	26,539	28,978
8	Harrow	15,801	19,062	17,596
9	Brent	30,630	23,171	16,773
10	Westminster	2,264	16,546	16,391
11	Merton	18,454	21,259	15,577
12	Wandsworth	3,125	4,692	11,786
13	Tower Hamlets	1,042	6,612	9,611
14	Barking & Dagenham	7,514	9,294	9,161
15	Islington	9,272	9,634	8,930
16	Haringey	13,337	12,718	8,319
17	Southwark	10,515	9,045	7,297
18	Enfield	7,683	10,281	7,061
19	Camden	9,622	8,409	6,470
20	Hammersmith and Fulham	11,315	10,382	6,180
21	Kingston upon Thames	12,683	6,419	5,932
22	Lewisham	0	2,914	4,648
23	Lambeth	6,601	4,579	3,760
24	Redbridge	4,272	2,463	1,258
25	Hounslow	417	299	954
26	Richmond	2,995	4,526	846
27	Bexley	267	158	172
28	Hillingdon	0	0	54
	City of London	NA	NA	NA
	Sutton	NA	NA	NA
	Bromley	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Greenwich	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Kensington and Chelsea	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Croydon	DNR	DNR	DNR
	Newham	DNR	DNR	DNR
	TOTAL	290,094	384,356	419,801
	Change – year-on-year		94,262	35,445
	Change 16/17 to 18/19			129,707

‘No turn’ revenue – ranked by 18/19
Rank	Council	Revenues 16/17	Revenues 17/18	Revenues 18/19
1	Ealing	£2,683,701	£2,656,095	£2,685,346
2	Transport for London	£1,012,411	£1,903,322	£2,093,651
3	Hackney	£0	£133,420	£1,888,845
4	Havering	£459,856	£1,698,206	£1,872,821
5	Waltham Forest	£1,526,667	£1,688,329	£1,865,539
6	Cardiff	£442,284	£1,388,241	£1,438,732
7	Brent	£1,969,815	£1,756,762	£1,317,666
8	Westminster	£88,507	£1,195,813	£1,177,011
9	Merton	£1,322,351	£1,548,912	£1,132,455
10	Harrow	£1,044,236	£1,245,682	£1,096,385
11	Wandsworth	£175,279	£302,830	£718,888
12	Barking & Dagenham	£472,662	£631,866	£620,809
13	Tower Hamlets	£4,616	£395,168	£569,120
14	Haringey	£921,276	£853,553	£535,393
15	Islington	£553,306	£554,082	£495,051
16	Southwark	£706,394	£607,718	£463,048
17	Camden	£633,714	£578,576	£445,899
18	Enfield	£484,953	£656,839	£421,395
19	Kingston upon Thames	£805,522	£369,325	£399,809
20	Hammersmith and Fulham	£771,727	£710,464	£399,250
21	Lewisham	£0	£180,653	£263,818
22	Lambeth	£438,396	£315,769	£246,080
23	Redbridge	£287,682	£155,448	£81,444
24	Richmond	£214,526	£310,580	£61,407
25	Hounslow	£28,767	£19,388	£52,803
26	City of London	£53,942	£41,543	£20,215
27	Bexley	£16,719	£10,204	£11,034
28	Hillingdon	£0	£0	£3,412
	Sutton	£0	£0	£0
	Bromley	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Greenwich	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Kensington and Chelsea	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Barnet	DNR	DNR	DNR
	Croydon	DNR	DNR	DNR
	Newham	DNR	DNR	DNR
	TOTAL	£17,119,308	£21,908,787	£22,377,326
	Change – year-on-year		£4,789,479	£468,538
	Change 16/17 to 18/19			£5,258,018

No entry PCNs ranked by 18/19
Rank	Council / Authority	PCNs – 16/17	PCNs 17/18	PCNs 18/19
1	Harrow	2,209	3,223	8,286
2	Southwark	5,213	5,309	7,000
3	Islington	6,954	5,210	6,845
4	Haringey	7,379	6,049	5,825
5	Cardiff	0	4,474	5,643
6	Hackney	471	1,979	5,099
7	Lewisham	3,396	3,760	5,092
8	Enfield	3,665	5,029	4,086
9	Merton	172	39	3,673
10	Barnet	838	4,072	3,640
11	Waltham Forest	1,030	3,324	3,103
12	Hillingdon	0	0	2,974
13	Sutton	0	556	2,830
14	Camden	3,647	2,475	2,116
15	Kingston upon Thames	17,379	5,505	2,086
16	Redbridge	0	181	1,826
17	Lambeth	1,216	1,185	1,442
18	Hounslow	129	4,177	1,355
19	Tower Hamlets	116	646	1,326
20	Ealing	715	947	1,197
21	Westminster	NA	1,353	1,023
22	Barking & Dagenham	392	660	339
23	Transport for London	2,717	989	339
24	Bexley	145	191	204
25	Havering	227	949	113
26	Brent	127	201	75
27	Wandsworth	22	7	2
	City of London	NA	NA	NA
	Hammersmith and Fulham	NA	NA	NA
	Bromley	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Greenwich	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Kensington and Chelsea	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Richmond	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Croydon	DNR	DNR	DNR
	Newham	DNR	DNR	DNR
	TOTAL	58,159	62,490	77,539
	Change – year-on-year		4,331	15,049
	Change 16/17 to 18/19			19,380

‘No entry’ revenue ranked by 18/19
Rank	Council / Authority	Revenues 16/17	Revenues 17/18	Revenues 18/19
1	Harrow	£145,187	£209,595	£549,785
2	Southwark	£346,670	£343,540	£420,760
3	Islington	£393,285	£300,862	£357,265
4	Haringey	£453,605	£365,735	£339,607
5	Hackney	£27,468	£121,885	£307,539
6	Lewisham	£203,876	£217,105	£288,870
7	Merton	£12,287	£2,738	£243,063
8	Hillingdon	£0	£0	£198,979
9	Sutton	£0	£24,127	£190,571
10	Waltham Forest	£67,943	£210,741	£189,606
11	Cardiff	£0	£160,292	£182,782
12	Enfield	£197,406	£232,101	£179,249
13	Kingston upon Thames	£890,944	£308,018	£145,360
14	City of London	£434,750	£246,878	£145,180
15	Camden	£187,193	£153,129	£142,585
16	Redbridge	£0	£12,560	£115,166
17	Hounslow	£8,933	£223,070	£89,933
18	Tower Hamlets	£649	£39,489	£89,318
19	Lambeth	£79,154	£75,269	£87,269
20	Westminster	NA	£89,178	£73,395
21	Ealing	£29,972	£44,714	£49,843
22	Transport for London	£186,964	£70,586	£23,409
23	Barking & Dagenham	£20,996	£31,541	£17,980
24	Bexley	£9,253	£13,373	£12,512
25	Havering	£21,067	£51,291	£7,073
26	Brent	£6,826	£15,574	£6,353
27	Wandsworth	£1,365	£390	£65
	Hammersmith and Fulham	NA	NA	NA
	Barnet	NA	NA	NA
	Bromley	NA	NA	NA
	Greenwich	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Kensington and Chelsea	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Richmond	DNE	DNE	DNE
	Croydon	DNR	DNR	DNR
	Newham	DNR	DNR	DNR
	TOTAL	£3,725,794	£3,563,781	£4,453,518
	Change – YOY		-£162,013	£889,737
	Change 16/17 to 18/19			£727,724

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News