The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

The Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that an amazing 1 in 4 drivers who died on our roads in 2017 wasn’t wearing a seat belt. Official figures revealed that 1,793 people were killed on UK roads last year. Of those, 27% were not wearing a seatbelt, up from 20% the previous year.

The fine for not wearing a seatbelt is currently £100 which rises to £500 if the case goes to court. Clearly, this isn’t enough of a deterrent. As much as we hated Jimmy Saville his clunk click campaigns worked but what on earth causes drivers not to belt up when they get into a car? It just doesn’t make sense. We need some new campaigns to make drivers aware of the dangers that still exist.

On to cars:

Cars are exposed to dangers as a result of ineffective speed bumps. A survey carried out by Confused.com revealed that over a fifth of drivers had experienced car damage as a result of speed bumps with repairs costing an average of £141. Whilst not classed as a road defect local authorities have paid out over £35,000 over the last two years in compensation.

Confused.com surveyed 2,000 motorists of whom 22% reported damage caused by driving over a speed bump of which there are 29,000 in the UK. Tyre damage was the most common – in 48% of the cases followed by 33% reporting suspension damage. 41% felt that speed bumps caused too much damage whilst a quarter said that they did nothing to reduce speed – probably the drivers who sustained damage to their cars – idiots!

Advice from Confused.com’s motoring editor, Amanda Stretton was to check the height of the speed hump if they sustained damage whilst driving at a reasonable speed to see if you qualify for compensation. Might have been handy to explain what that height should be! By Graham Hill

New rules came into force in May with the most controversial being the visual test applied to diesel cars. I mentioned in earlier posts that the examiner now has to look at the tailpipe of any diesel to see if there is smoke, of any colour, emitting from the exhaust. If there is it’s an immediate fail.

The other visual check is for any tampering of the particulate filter. Any signs of tampering is also an immediate fail. Following the new tests the Prestige Motor Warehouse carried out a survey amongst 50 MOT stations across the UK and found that in the first 3 months following the rule changes the number of cars failing their MOT testa has increased by 24%.

With other rules either tightened or introduced there was also a 12% increase in petrol engine failures. Other new checks included under-inflated tyres, contaminated brake fluid, and fluid leaks, these being responsible for several of the failures. There is certainly no reason to fail on tyre pressure, a quick visit to a garage before going for the test should sort that out. By Graham Hill

Highways England has produced a report showing that tailgating kills or seriously injures 100 people on the road every year and causes one in eight road casualties. Highways England is the Government-owned company responsible for the UK’s 4,300 miles of motorways and major trunk roads – they produced the statistics from their own research.

They found that 90% of drivers surveyed reported that they had been tailgated or witnessed another driver being tailgated. As a result, they have launched a campaign called ‘Don’t be a space invader’ to help dissuade motorists from the practice. No I don’t get it either. They also found that tailgating was the single largest concern drivers have about other road users.

Ex F1 champion, Nigel Mansell is backing the campaign. He branded tailgating as ‘A driving habit I utterly deplore’, then said that driving too close to the car ahead is, ‘aggressive and intimidating’ and ‘Can lead to a crash with a tragic outcome’. Matthew Avery of Thatcham research agreed and explained, tailgating can lead to a ‘ripple effect’ of sharp braking from other drivers which can cause ‘Phantom’, traffic jams.

Richard Leonard, head of road safety at Highways England, says tailgating is dangerous, not only because it gives the perpetrator no thinking, braking or reacting time. But also it is ‘Intimidating and frightening if you’re on the receiving end’. This mix of circumstances can lead to mistakes being made with serious consequences.

In addition to the possibility of an accident, tailgating can lead to you receiving a fine of £100 and 3 points on your driving licence for dangerous driving. The official advice is to allow 2 seconds between you and the car in front and increase that to 4 seconds in the wet. Drive safely and think of others. By Graham Hill

The Press Association has carried out an investigation into vehicle thefts and found that between March 2017 and March 2018 theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle in England and Wales was 106,334, the highest since 2009/10. But even more worrying was the fact that 81,778 of these cases were concluded as ‘Investigation complete, no suspect identified’.

This means that 77% of all thefts resulted in no suspects being identified or arrested. That is frankly shocking. In the West Midlands it was even worse with 91% of car theft cases being closed with no suspect being identified. London’s Metropolitan police was a little lower at 85% of cases being closed for the same reasons.

All but 5 of the 44 forces analysed closed at least half of car theft cases with no suspects identified. When taken up with the Home Office a spokesman said, ‘We recognise that crime is changing and police demand is becoming increasingly complex, (no I don’t know what that means either). That’s why we have provided a strong and comprehensive £13 billion funding settlement to ensure the police have the resources they need to carry out their vital work.’

Well I’ve news for you sunshine, they ‘aint spending it on catching bloody car thieves! By Graham Hill

I have to say that when I’m stuck in traffic on the M25, a far too frequent occurrence, I have a little chuckle to myself, as I’m sure you do, (just me then eh?) when I see a number plate that looks a little cheeky or risque. Often I’m sure that I’m the only one who has spotted it but it brightens up my day.

But that may be coming to an end as the DVLA in this politically correct world that we live in has decided that it needs to tighten up a little on plates that may cause offence or upset. For goodness sake! But have they gone a little too far? I mean you really have to look at the plates to see what the letter and number combo have been interpreted as. Let’s give it a try to see what you think?

The first to get banned amongst the new 68 plates was NO68 EAD along with OR68 ASM. Now, most people probably wouldn’t even notice but these miserable BU68 GER’s are destroying hours of motorway fun by trying not to offend most people who wouldn’t even realise.

Apparently, they sift through the number plates every March and September to remove offensive, political and criminal leaning number plates. BU68 GER was banned as were AL68 HOL and BA68 TRD – really? Oh and I can see all sorts of problems if they hadn’t banned EU68 BAD and MU68 GER.

If we really have come down to this sort of silliness (swear words and serious crime connotations accepted) I dread to think of the cost of sifting through the 69 plates next September – nudge, nudge, wink, wink! Better start recruiting plate checker now DVLA! By Graham Hill

These days most of us are of the opinion that new cars, whatever their make, are all pretty reliable. After all, it’s in the manufacturer and dealer’s interest to make sure that you don’t suffer breakdowns in the first 30 days and end up handing the car back for a full refund.

This resulting in the dealer suffering the massive depreciation that happens the moment the tyres hit the road when the car turns from being new to second hand. Beyond the first 30 days with strong warranties and consumer rights one would think that the manufacturers have been doing everything to ensure that the vehicles are fault free. But What Car has found this not to be the case.

Which is disappointing for those buying new cars as opposed to used because often the decision to buy a new car is based on the perceived greater reliability of a new car over a used car. Of course, What Car must justify its spend on these sorts of surveys so one would expect a degree of exaggeration but it doesn’t hide the fact that 30% of their survey respondents, driving cars that were 4 years old or less, said that they had suffered a fault within the last 12 months.

Some cars come with a 3-year warranty whilst others cover up to 7 years but even so only 52% of those with faults had them repaired under warranty. 22% had to pay bills of £101-£200 whilst 6% had bills in excess of £1,500. Their report goes into great detail and covers 159 models over 31 brands.

I have to say that some of the findings were surprising and certainly didn’t agree with the feelings of some of my customers but if you are thinking of buying or leasing a car the report  may be of interest. The October edition of What Car is still available on the newsagent’s shelves.

In answer to the question – which is the most reliable? Up top 4 years old it is Suzuki followed by Lexus. Over 4 years old Lexus followed by Dacia. Bottom of the pile, 20% lower than the next up was Tesla at 57.3% reliability with Land Rover second from bottom at 76.5%. By Graham Hill

I reported last week that three constabularies, Thames Valley, Hampshire and West Midlands were instructing officers to randomly stop drivers and carry out a number plate reading test whereby the driver is expected to read a number plate 20 metres away.

If the driver is unable to read the number plate he or she will automatically have their licence revoked and stopped from continuing their journey. Whilst road safety group BRAKE supported the police in this initiative, questions have been asked as to whether this is fair to police as well as drivers.

Is it right to give police the same powers as judge and jury by giving them the responsibility of taking away a driver’s licence on the spot? There is also the question as to who they should test. Whilst Brake believes that it’s a great way to make roads safer, because of the randomness of the tests it is unlikely to make roads much safer.

It would be better for all drivers to have an eye test every 5 years till they get to say 40 when it should be mandatory to have an eye test annually. The police are struggling to catch crooks and remove dangerous joy riders without licences and insurance from our roads so to load them with even more responsibility by forcing them to randomly stop drivers to carry out a sight test, when it could be handled differently, is just plain daft.

Of course, I don’t agree that anyone who has illegal eyesight to be allowed to drive on our roads but unlike a drunk driver who knows he is doing something illegal we could treat them with a little more sensitivity and make sure that they either correct the situation or let their doctor or optician explain why they can no longer drive.

Annual eye tests – that’s what we need! By Graham Hill

I have just been looking at artists’ impressions of electric cars of the future. They look amazing, like mini caravans with plenty of room to relax have a chat, have a drink, watch TV and even stretch out and have a snooze. It all looks fantastic, a great way to travel but read other reports and they say we will never get to a situation where a car will completely drive itself.

According to safety reports, you won’t be able to go out, have a skinful, fall into your electric car, announce to Siri that you want to go home and let the car take over whilst you throw up into a bag for life. In fact, you will still have to be in a driver’s seat and still capable of taking over the controls in the event of an emergency or the systems failing. So which is right? What are we to believe?

The same applies to Diesel vs Petrol. There is constant confusion over the emissions. Old diesels are, without doubt, not good for the environment. The high levels of NOx are not good for people’s health and particulates (soot) are bad for health and bad for buildings causing deterioration. Compare that with the damage to the ozone layer caused by high CO2 emissions from petrol cars – the next environmental panic.

So should we drive diesel cars or petrol cars if we can’t afford the premium prices or lease rates of hybrids or electrics? Latest test results show that there are virtually no particulate emissions from the latest diesel engines and whilst NOx from diesels is still slightly higher than petrol, CO2 emissions are still higher from petrol compared to diesel so in truth there is little to choose between the two.

That is until the newly developed Bosch system gets added to diesel cars. The estimate is that NOX emissions from diesel cars will drop to about 10% of the new levels that will come into force in 2020. In the meantime what should drivers do? We need less confusion and a consistent message. By Graham Hill

If you think it’s OK but you haven’t had your eyes tested for a few years – if ever, you should think about it seriously or risk losing your licence – instantly! Three constabularies are stopping motorists and asking them to read a number plate 20 metres away. If they can’t they are being prevented from driving by having their licence revoked on the spot.

The initiative is being run in Hampshire, West Midlands and Thames Valley. The results will be analysed and decisions made as to whether to roll out across England and Wales. Safety organisation Brake and Vision Express are calling for a vision test when car licences are renewed every 10 years. Joshua Harris, Campaign Director for Brake said, ‘It is frankly madness that there is no mandatory requirement on drivers to have an eye test throughout the course of their driving life.

Only by introducing rigorous and professional eye tests can we fully tackle the problem of unsafe drivers on our roads’. Research by the Association of Optometrists, published in November last year, found that 35 per cent of optometrists had seen patients in the previous month who were driving, despite having been told their vision was below the legal standard. Based on this figure, it is estimated that around one million people could be driving illegally.

There is a lot of evidence to show that accidents including fatalities could be avoided if there was a statutory requirement on all motorists to have an eye test. Campaigners have also called for a so-called Poppy’s Law, making it a legal requirement for medical professionals to report patients who are unfit to drive.

This followed the death of three-year-old Poppy-Arabella Clarke, who was killed in 2016 by a 73-year-old motorist who had ignored warnings from his opticians not to drive and was not wearing his glasses at the time. A disgrace and unnecessary tragedy. By Graham Hill

So you’ve been to a party, club or just down the pub and had a skinful. You responsibly get a lift or a cab home. You even have a Halfords special breath tester and test your breath. Great, you’re well under the legal limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (England and Wales) so you jump into your car and off you go. But are you safe?

Scientists from the University of Bath say no. They conducted a meta-analysis (no I don’t know either) of 11 existing hangover studies, determining that ‘Sustained attention and driving abilities were impaired during hangover’. These are people under the alcohol blood limit but still in recovery.

One study showed reaction times to be 20% slower in hungover subjects, while another revealed ‘the ability to control a vehicle, as measured by deviation from a set course was impaired’ following a night of ‘heavy drinking’. Lead author Dr Sally Adams told Auto Express, who reported the findings, hangovers affect two key elements for driving, the first is our ability to concentrate on our activity for sustained periods of time and the second, psychomotor skills(our brain’s ability to control physical activities).

She went on to explain. ‘Your body works hard to metabolise alcohol and produces acetaldehyde as it does so’. And with current research indicating acetaldehyde ‘mimics the neurological effects of alcohol’ she suggested that ‘It may be time we consider if you have to drive the next day, perhaps a heavy night of drinking the night before isn’t a good idea’.

Whilst Government is considering lowering the limit to 50mg per 100ml in line with Scotland and many other European countries this won’t stop the ‘hungover effect’ If you were bladdered the night before. The NHS advises that the body takes 3 hours to break down the alcohol in a 250ml glass of wine and 2 hours to process a pint of normal-strength beer.

Adams finished off by saying that it may be possible in the future to have detectors that will detect if you are suffering from the ‘hungover effect’ and could lead to prosecutions and may be used in evidence in serious or fatal road accidents. You’ve been warned! By Graham Hill