The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

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

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

Tesla has been banned from making claims that its cars have “self-driving” technology by a court in Munich.

The ruling prevents the company from making references to the potential of its Autopilot driver assistance system that could mislead customers to think that the car can drive itself.

Autopilot combines adaptive cruise control and lane-keep assist with various other safety systems and can perform driving tasks for extended stretches with little or no human intervention, however it is not an autonomous driving system and the driver must remain in control of the vehicle at all times.

The case was bought by Germany’s Wettbewerbszentrale fair-competition group, which objected to claims on Tesla’s website promising “full potential for autonomous driving” including “automatic driving on motorways”.

Matthew Avery, research director at Thatcham Research, said: “We have long warned of the pitfalls to the Autopilot system. Its seemingly competent performance can encourage drivers to hand too much control to the vehicle and lose sight of their responsibilities behind the wheel.

“This is a progressive process that begins when motorists are marketed the ‘self-driving’ experience.

“Autopilot is not a self-driving system. It is there to provide driver assistance, not become an invisible chauffeur.”

Thatcham Research supports the German court’s ruling, stating that “Autopilot” is a misleading term.

Avery said Tesla’s marketing frequently suggests the car is capable of ‘full self-driving’ and he highlighted that some UK Tesla customers recently received an email communication stating: “Our records indicate that you haven’t upgraded your Model S to Full Self-Driving Capability. You can upgrade now at a reduced price of £2,200.”

Tesla’s Autopilot system has repeatedly come under fire in the wake of numerous accidents that have occurred while the system was engaged.

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

It was determined that the Tesla Autopilot system’s limitations, the driver’s overreliance on the Autopilot and the driver’s distraction – likely from a mobile phone game app – caused the crash.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the Tesla vehicle’s ineffective monitoring of driver engagement was determined to have contributed to the crash.

Tesla’s chief executive Elon Musk said the company is “very close” to making its cars capable of automated driving without any need for driver input.

“I’m extremely confident that Level 5 or essentially complete autonomy will happen and I think will happen very quickly,” he said at the opening of Shanghai’s annual World Artificial Intelligence Conference. 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 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

This should still act as a warning to all companies and those that drive for work. Well worth a read!

Serious and systemic health and safety failings that led to the deaths of two employees in a works van would, some might think, attract a charge of corporate manslaughter.

Instead, the employer – Renown Consultants – was charged and found guilty under health and safety legislation and, rather than the police pursuing the prosecution, it was a regulator that was left to prosecute the case.

Twelve years after the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act came into force, there have been just 26 convictions.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings was the first company to be convicted under the new legislation after an employee was crushed to death when the sides of an excavated pit collapsed while he was collecting soil samples. The firm was fined £385,000 in 2011, which led to its closure.

Four years later, Baldwins Crane Hire became the first business to face a corporate manslaughter charge involving the death of a company driver.

An investigation by Lancashire Police and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) revealed that the employee had been driving a heavy crane down a steep road, when the vehicle’s brakes failed and it crashed into an earth bank.

The company was fined £700,000 and ordered to pay £200,000 in costs after being found guilty of corporate manslaughter and health and safety offences.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Under the former corporate manslaughter legislation, the prosecution would have had to prove that a ‘directing mind’ – a director or manager – was guilty of gross negligence manslaughter to convict a company for manslaughter.

However, it was difficult to prove against large companies and, following several high-profile failures, the law was changed to allow a company to be convicted of manslaughter without prosecuting any individual.

Health and safety legal expert, Michael Appleby, a partner at Fisher Scoggins Waters, told Fleet News: “Since the law came into force, there have been very few prosecutions and nearly all of them have been against small companies with only a few directors, and, arguably, many of these cases could have been brought under the old law.”

A charge of corporate manslaughter has to be proved to the criminal standard; in other words, beyond reasonable doubt.

This does not apply to health and safety prosecutions.

A prosecution of a company for a breach of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act for failing to ensure the health and safety of employees, or section 3 for failing to ensure the health and safety of non-employees, is much easier to prove, says Appleby.

“All the prosecution has to prove to the criminal standard is that there was an exposure to material risk and then it is for the company to prove to the civil standard, i.e. on the balance of probabilities, it did everything that was reasonably practicable to control the risks.”

FATIGUE FAILINGS

This was the approach taken in the case where two employees were killed in a works van. Zac Payne, 20, and Michael Morris, 48, died on June 19, 2013, when Payne fell asleep at the wheel of a van operated by Renown Consultants.

The vehicle ploughed into a truck parked in a layby on the A1 and caught fire. Both Payne and Morris were pronounced dead at the scene.

The previous day, Payne had left Doncaster at 4.30am and driven to Alnmouth, Northumberland, arriving to carry out work on the railway. The expected work did not take place. So, after waiting until midday, Payne returned to the Doncaster depot, arriving at 3pm.

On his return journey, he was asked to take on an overnight railway welding job in Stevenage and, with Morris, they set off from the depot four hours later, arriving at the site just before 10pm.

After nearly six hours working on the tracks, Payne was driving back to Doncaster when the crash occurred at around 5.30am.

The police investigation was handed over to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) in 2014, which found serious and systemic failings to manage fatigue.

Renown was found guilty in March, following a trial at Nottingham Crown Court.

In sentencing the company, Judge Goldsmark said that, while fleet safety policies were in place, operations managers paid “lip service” to them.

Furthermore, despite the company’s insurance policy stipulating only over-25s may drive their vehicles, the judge said it was “common practice” for younger employees to drive to and from jobs.

He said senior operations managers at the Doncaster depot “cut corners”, with “expediency” often overriding known safety policies, and there was a “wilful blindness”, when it came to the management of fatigue, driver time and distances to and from jobs.

He also said that the paperwork relating to fleet-related audits did not tell the full story and breaches of health and safety legislation were “systemic and long-lasting”.

‘NO DIFFERENCE’

Peter Eldridge, a director at the Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP), says a “virtually identical” case occurred in 2003, with a company called MJ Graves International.

Martin Graves, the owner, was jailed for manslaughter after one of his drivers killed a motorist. He was sentenced to four years for gross negligence manslaughter and 12 months, to run concurrently, for falsifying tachograph records.

Eldridge said: “I looked at the Renown case and couldn’t see a scrap of difference because there were systemic failings in the control, there were systemic failings on the part of individuals in the business at Renown and there were systemic failings on the part of the business.

“Why weren’t they prosecuted (for corporate manslaughter)? On the basis of the law, it’s difficult to understand why it wasn’t taken further.”

The police are responsible for investigating suspected cases of corporate manslaughter, but when it came to Renown, it was left to the regulator to pursue the prosecution.

Ian Prosser, HM Chief Inspector of Railways, told Fleet News: “The police had a look and I think they saw the potential complexity in how they would try and pull that sort evidence together.

“Corporate manslaughter is very difficult (to prove) and the HSE were not interested either in trying to take it forward.”

He explained: “We couldn’t bring a manslaughter charge, so we looked for failings in the application of their management system, which, in the end, was where we were successful.”

LEVEL OF FINE

It was the first time that the regulator had brought a prosecution in relation to failures of fatigue management.

Prosser says it was a “very difficult” case. “We were concerned that unless we had every ‘i’ dotted and ‘t’ crossed, we would probably have lost it.”

The firm was ordered to pay a fine of £450,000 and costs of £300,000 after being found guilty under sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations.

Sentencing guidelines for a company with Renown’s turnover, under corporate manslaughter, would have seen a starting point of £800,000 for high level of harm or culpability and £540,000 for a lower level of culpability.

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

The ORR says it didn’t take any action against the directors or senior managers as there was insufficient evidence.

Appleby said: “That may explain why the police did not pursue corporate manslaughter charges because they concluded they would not be able to prove senior management failure.

“It may also be the case that while the police could have concluded that the failure by the company was a bad failure it was not bad enough to be characterised as ‘gross’.”

The judge in his summing up concluded that Renown’s breaches of duty of care were due to the failure of senior management.

However, Appleby explained: “The judge did not go as far as saying that the breaches by Renown were gross breaches, which would be required for corporate manslaughter.

“What he did say was that the company fell far short of the appropriate standard, the breaches occurred over a long period of time and that they were a serious and systemic failure.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Met Police has reported a 71% increase in drivers caught speeding in London during lockdown, while other forces saw a decrease in offences, new figures suggest.

The BBC reports that, according to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by the PA news agency, the Met Police issued 3,282 Traffic Offence Reports to drivers suspected of exceeding the limit in April, compared with 1,922 in April 2019.

London’s roadside cameras caught a further 14,736 people in April 2020 – the first full month of lockdown.

Speeding data obtained from other forces also showed areas reporting an increase in the number of drivers caught for speeding. Kent Police and Derbyshire Constabulary reported year-on-year rises, up 53% and 41% respectively.

Fleet News has reported how police forces across the UK have caught drivers speeding during the lockdown, with one driver breaking the legal limit by 81mph and another clocked doing 108mph in a 40mph zone.

However, the majority of forces who provided data to the most recent FOI request recorded an overall decrease, amid a reduction in traffic levels of around two-thirds as the lockdown was in full effect.

It showed that 13 forces did see an increase in the speed of the fastest drivers caught, including in Dyfed-Powys, North Yorkshire, Police Scotland and West Mercia.

In London, the highest speeds recorded during the lockdown were: 163mph on a 70mph road; 134mph on a 40mph road; 110mph on a 30mph road; and 73mph on a 20mph road.

In separate research, five forces – Northamptonshire, Gwent, Staffordshire, Kent and Humberside – all caught motorists driving at speeds in excess of 130mph on the motorway and three others – Police Scotland, the Met and Lancashire – recorded drivers at speeds in excess of 120mph.

Derbyshire’s fastest offender was clocked at 108mph, but that was on a stretch of the M1 with a 40mph limit – 68mph above the speed limit.

Det Supt Andy Cox of the Metropolitan Police told the BBC that many drivers caught speeding during the early weeks of lockdown did not expect officers to be patrolling near-deserted roads.

“Early on, for some people driving at extreme speeds, they would be really surprised to see us there,” he said. “They would actually come out and say ‘we thought you’d be busy dealing with Covid’.

“Maybe some people advantage because congestion was less and thought they’d get away with it.”

FLEETS WARNED

Licence Bureau says that the current reduction in traffic volumes, the incidents of speeding reported by police, and reduced driving activity for many employees combined with mounting economic business pressures, is creating a ‘perfect storm’ fleets need to pay special attention to.

Steve Pinchen, sales director at Licence Bureau, explained: “There is so much at play right now, but businesses really must ensure they do not drop the ball when it comes to legal compliance.

“Business driver road safety and duty of care, arguably more so now than ever, need to be at the top of the priority list for fleet operators.”

With employees returning from furlough, some of whom may not have driven for months, Pinchen argues that organisations have got to take a “pragmatic approach” by providing support and creating responsible cultures from individual drivers to senior management level.

The laws surrounding ‘driving for work’ include, amongst others, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007; Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; and Road Traffic Act 1988 & 1991.

Renown Consultants was ordered to pay £750,000 in fines and costs last month, after being found guilty of serious health and safety failings.

In the June digital edition of Fleet News, experts speculate police may have feared failure had they charged Renown Consultants with corporate manslaughter.

Pinchen said: “Legal compliance; health and safety; duty of care – they are all part of an organisation’s responsibilities.

“At any given moment, a business needs to be able to demonstrate that it has done everything reasonably possible to reduce risks.

“Even in the ‘new norm’ these laws remain unchanged and all organisations need to have a sharp focus on the task at hand as everyone starts to re-find their feet.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

A surge of unsafe vehicles are returning the UK’s roads as Coronavirus lockdown restrictions ease, warns Aviva.

It found that more than a quarter (28%) of drivers have not performed any checks on their vehicles at all throughout lockdown.

Aviva’s research into motorists’ attitudes to driving post-lockdown reveals there could be an increase in the number of potentially dangerous vehicles on roads, with many motorists forgoing vehicle safety checks in recent months.

More than two thirds of drivers have not checked their tyre treads (68%) or engine oil levels (68%). In addition, six out of 10 (60%) haven’t tested their tyre pressures and two thirds (67%) haven’t looked at their lights.

In contrast, almost half of drivers (43%) have ensured their vehicles have looked the part by cleaning them during this time.

Sarah Applegate, head of global strategy and insight at Aviva, said: “This latest research reveals motorists’ caution about driving as lockdown conditions ease. Drivers will inevitably be using their cars more often as restrictions lift and non-essential shops start to reopen, so they should prepare for this by ensuring their vehicles are up to scratch.

“To make sure our roads stay as safe as possible, drivers should carry out basic checks before they use their cars again. If people have any concerns about their vehicles, they should ask a professional mechanic to investigate, particularly before embarking on longer journeys.

“It’s also important for drivers to make sure their insurance policy suits their future driving needs. If people are likely to use their car significantly more or less post-lockdown, or drivers need to be added or removed from policies, they should inform their insurance provider so their cover can be updated.”

Since the start of lockdown, there have been five million fewer MOT tests carried out in April and May 2020 than in the same months last year.

Any motorists with an MOT test due from March 30 have automatically been given a six-month extension as part of the Coronavirus lockdown, leaving many cars, vans and motorcycles unchecked, potentially allowing unroadworthy vehicles to be driven.

Despite this, many drivers plan to take long journeys using their car as lockdown restrictions ease. One in five (20%) plan to use their car to travel to a holiday destination in another part of the UK in the next three months, while one in ten (10%) will use their car to drive to the countryside.

Ian Leonard, head of fleet operations at Yodel, advises all drivers to check their vehicles thoroughly before returning the road. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

BMW is launching a ‘digital key’ that will enable customers to use their iPhone to lock, unlock and drive their car.

The announcement, made at the Apple Worldwide Developer Conference on Tuesday, June 23, sees BMW become the first carmaker to enable its customers to use the iPhone as a fully digital car key.

The manufacturer says it will enable customers to “just tap to unlock and easily get going by placing the iPhone in the smartphone tray and pushing the start button”.

Setup of the Digital Key can be done through the BMW Smartphone App, it said.

The car owner can also share access with up to five other people, including a configurable car access option for young drivers which restricts top speed, horsepower, maximum radio volume and more.

Management of access can be done from inside the car as well as through Apple Wallet.

The technology will be available on a broad range of models: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, X5, X6, X7, X5M, X6M and Z4 if manufactured after July 1st 2020.

Compatible iPhone models will be iPhone XR, iPhone XS or newer and Apple Watch Series 5 or newer.

BMW and Apple also announced a new feature that they say will make it easier for CarPlay users to take BMW electric vehicles (EVs) on longer journeys by automatically taking into account when and where to charge.

Drivers can plan their trip in advance on their iPhone or enter their destination through Apple CarPlay when they get into the car; either way, Apple Maps will pick the optimal route based on electric range and the locations of charging stations along the way. This feature will first be available for BMW in the fully electric BMW i4 launching next year.  By Graham Hill with the help of Fleet News

One in three people questioned say they are permanently planning to stop car-sharing, with two in five declaring that giving people a lift to work is now a thing of the past.

The results of the Motorpoint online poll suggest fears over Covid-19 could put pay to the arrangement for a significant minority of people.

That would result in passengers returning to public transport or more likely still, considering their fears over contagion, deciding to drive instead, with the potential for increased congestion.

The latest figures from the Department for Transport (DfT) show how low traffic levels fell at the start of the lockdown, but also reveal they starting to return to pre-lockdown levels.

During the first full day of lockdown (Tuesday, March 24), car use fell to less than half (44%) of the expected level. Light commercial vehicle (LCV) use stood at 55%, HGV use at 84%.

Three months later and the day after retail outlets were allowed to open for the first time on Monday, June 15, car use had risen, but was still only at 70%. Van use and HGV use had grown to 84% and 92%, respectively.

Mark Carpenter, chief executive officer of Motorpoint, said: “The results of our poll are clearly understandable given Covid-19 and definitely reflect the desire by people to maintain social distancing at all times when outside of their home, whether it’s travelling to work, visiting friends or simply popping to the shops for a loaf of bread and some milk.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News