The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Ford is testing a new connected traffic light system that can automatically turn green for emergency vehicles.

The system can also interact with the adaptive cruise control in Ford passenger cars, allowing the vehicle to adjust its speed on approach, therefore reducing congestion.

The trial was part of a broader project that involved testing automated and connected vehicles and networked infrastructure in highway, urban and rural areas.

“Whether it’s a fire engine attending a blaze or an ambulance that is en route to an accident, the last thing anyone wants is for these drivers to be caught up among other vehicles waiting for the lights to change,” said Martin Sommer, research engineer, Automated Driving Europe, Ford of Europe.

In order to test the technology, Ford utilised a road with eight consecutive traffic lights in Aachen, Germany, and two stretches with three consecutive traffic lights just outside the city, all set up by the project’s partners.

For testing an emergency response situation, the test vehicle signalled to the traffic lights to turn the light green. Once the vehicle passed through the junction, the traffic lights returned to standard operation. 

For testing daily driving situations, the test vehicle received the timing information for when the traffic lights turned from red to green and green to red. Ford’s Adaptive Cruise Control technology then adapted the vehicle’s speed to help ensure a higher proportion of traffic encountered a green light.

When the traffic light was red, the vehicle’s speed was reduced well ahead of the junction to time the vehicle’s approach to arrive at the light the moment it turned green, for example from 30mph to 20mph.

For vehicles encountering a red light, the technology could still help to minimise harsh braking and the time spent at a standstill. The vehicle received the traffic light information well ahead of the junction and slowed down earlier, helping to reduce congestion.

The communication between vehicles and traffic lights is enabled by C-V2X (Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything) technology, a unified platform that connects vehicles to roadside infrastructure, other vehicles and other road users. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Mercedes-Benz will accept legal responsibility for collisions that occur in its cars fitted with a new Level 3 Automated Lane Keeping System.

Its new Drive Pilot system has been approved for us on German highways and can control the cars steering, acceleration and brakes at speed up to 40mph.

The car maker said it will accept liability in cases where the crash was caused by a fault with its technology, but not when the driver has “failed to comply with their duty of care”.

Drive Pilot will be initially offered on the S-Class and EQS, as an option, in German Markets. Mercedes also plans to introduce the technology in US markets, once it gains approval.

Matthew Avery, chief research strategy officer at Thatcham Research, said: “The issue of liability in automated vehicles is complex and nuanced. It’s too crude to suggest that the carmaker should be liable in all circumstances; there will be times when an accident is and isn’t the carmaker’s responsibility.

“What is apparent in the case of Mercedes, the first to have approval – albeit in Germany – for technology that will allow drivers to disengage and do other things, is that when the automated system is in control, the carmaker will be liable.

“What’s less straightforward is an accident that occurs when the driver has failed “to comply with their duty of care”, for example when refusing to retake control of the car when prompted.

“It will be incumbent on carmakers to ensure drivers of their cars are confident, comfortable and have a strong grasp of their legal responsibilities – which in the UK would be in accordance with the Road Traffic Act. Absolute clarity is required for drivers in terms of their legal obligations behind the wheel and their understanding of how the system operates, especially during a handover from system to driver.

“This is challenged by the fact that a driver can take a long time to come back ‘into the loop’ after extended periods of effectively being chauffeured by the system.

“Insurance claims will require scrutiny, so the provision of data to help insurers understand who was in control of the vehicle at the time of an accident, system or driver, will also be vital.

“Trust will diminish if confusion reigns and drawn-out legal cases become common, hampering adoption of the technology and the realisation of its many societal benefits.”

The Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission have published a joint report, making recommendations for the safe and responsible introduction of self-driving vehicles.

Under the Law Commissions’ proposals, when a car is authorised by a regulatory agency as having “self-driving features” and those features are in-use, the person in the driving seat would no longer be responsible for how the car drives. Instead, the company or body that obtained the authorisation – typically the vehicle manufacturer should face regulatory sanctions if anything goes wrong.

The report recommends introducing a new Automated Vehicles Act, to regulate vehicles that can drive themselves and suggests that a clear distinction should be made between features which just assist drivers, such as adaptive cruise control, and those that are self-driving.

Thatcham Research is currently leading the development of a consumer safety rating to support the safe adoption of Automated Driving Systems. Funded by government organisation Zenzic and in co-operation with Connected and Automated Mobility (CAM) Testbed partners, the rating will give UK motorists and insurers greater clarity around relative performance and safe use of automated technology. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News.

The cost to repair Britain’s pothole-stricken roads has soared to more than £12bn and works could take more than nine years to complete, according to a new report.

The Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) survey, published by the Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA), shows that the reported backlog of carriageway repairs has increased by almost a quarter since last year.

It has cost fleet operators and private motorists £1.7bn in vehicle repairs, over the last 12 months, according to Kwik Fit.

Rick Green, AIA Chair, said: “Local authority highway teams have a legal responsibility to keep our roads safe, but do not have the funds to do so in a cost effective, proactive way. As a result, while they report some slight improvements in surface conditions, the structure of our roads continues to decline.

“Although surface repairs have a part to play in extending the life of local roads, short-term fixes, including filling potholes, is indicative of a network that is ‘on the edge’ and less efficient and sustainable when it comes to materials usage and whole-life carbon emissions.”

The ALARM survey reveals that Local authorities would have needed an extra £1bn last year just to reach their own target road conditions, before even thinking about tackling the backlog of repairs.

Almost one in five local roads could need to be rebuilt in the next five years, accounting for nearly 37,000 miles of the network.

Green added: “The longer it takes for the funding to be put in place to tackle the backlog of repairs, the more it is going to cost to put it right in the future. Four years ago, the AIA calculated that an additional £1.5 billion per year was needed for 10 years to bring local roads up to scratch. In the meantime, the network has continued to decline and ALARM 2022 indicates that an additional investment of more than £2 billion a year over the next decade is now needed.”

Kwik Fit’s research found that 13.3 million motorists say their car has suffered damage in the last year as a result of a pothole impact, with the average individual repair bill coming to £132.

When it comes to the road surfaces in their local area, almost three times as many drivers think conditions have deteriorated in the last year as believe they have got better. 

Almost half (46%) of drivers say the road surfaces have got worse in the last twelve months, compared to 16% who say they have improved.  London is the only region of the country to buck this trend.  In the capital, 30% of drivers say the road surfaces are better than one year ago, compared to 25% who say they are worse.

The RAC’s head of roads policy, Nicholas Lyes, said: “This year’s AIA ALARM report provides a sobering picture of the dire condition of our local road network. Not only has there been a significant increase in the cost to fix the backlog of defects, but worryingly the report also shows that roads are only resurfaced once every 70 years on average, with maintenance mostly focusing on filling potholes which is often nothing more than a sticking plaster.

“The Government must now look at implementing a long-term funding strategy which ringfences a small proportion of existing fuel duty revenue to give local authorities the resources to properly plan maintenance and to ensure our local roads are once again made fit for purpose.”

Jack Cousens, head of roads policy at The AA, added: “Each year the debate around roads maintenance degenerates into a blame game between local authorities and Government as each claims it is the other’s responsibility to resolve.

Local and national government must get round the table and create a fully-funded plan that will help make our roads safer. There is now a need to focus available road funding on the most basic need: fixing the roads – for the benefit of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The cost of a breakdown for an electric vehicle (EV) is 2.7 times more than that of an internal combustion engine (ICE) car, new research suggests.

Analysis of more than 2,500 EVs over four-and-a-half years by Total Motion found that, on average, breakdown costs for a petrol or diesel car were £221 per incident (excluding accidents) compared with £596 for an EV.

The number of breakdowns, on average, was also higher for a plug-in vehicle – 3.1 incidents for an EV versus 1.9 for an ICE vehicle.

However, the research from the fleet management company shows that service, maintenance and repair (SMR) costs for EVs are, on average, approximately 27% lower than that of a petrol or diesel car.

The firm, which has been managing electric and alternative fuel vehicles since 2004, monitored reliability, downtime costs and breakdown frequency, comparing EVs with ICE cars in a number of key areas based on 36 months or 75,000 miles.

These included: SMR costs; number of breakdowns based on 36/75k; fleet insurance costs; downtime; parts availability; repair times; and dealer/repairer performance.

Between June 2017 and December 2021, the driving history of more than 2,500 EVs – Tesla, Porsche, Nissan, Renault, Audi and Mercedes – were scrutinised by the Total Motion team.

It found that the average costs involved in replacing a windscreen were six times that of an ICE vehicle. The average ICE replacement being £397 compared to an average of £2,382 for an EV.

Total Motion said the cost ratio was so different due to technology, such as ADAS, being used in the latest windscreens.

However, it could be argued that’s not down to the car in question being an EV as ICE vehicle windscreens are also employing similar technologies.

The average dealer satisfaction score for ICE vehicles, meanwhile, was 84% for ICE vehicles and 53% for EVs.

The Total motion team also compared miles per gallon (MPG) and range performance. Using the combined published MPG, the ICE vehicle achieved 83.6% while the EV achieved 74.1%.

In terms of insurance, Total Motion found insuring an EV is approximately 19% higher than that of an ICE equivalent, and in of in terms of vehicle off road (VOR) days including accidents, the average number of EV VOR days was 15.3 compared to 2.8 for an ICE vehicle.

Simon Hill, Total Motion director, said: “Whilst the clamour for EV vehicles is gathering momentum, particularly with generous company car tax breaks and the 2030 deadline for ceasing production of new petrol and diesel cars in the UK, we decided to carry out this research on behalf of our fleet customers.

“The findings of the study lead us to conclude that the transition to EV for many fleets is being done far too early, and that this will have significant cost and operational implications.”

Hill said: “Our long-term view is that ICE will continue to reduce in volume and EV and plug-in hybrid (PHEV) vehicles will continue to increase, with a view to hydrogen or hydrogen plug-in being challengers to EV within 15-20 years.”

However, Total Motion’s findings do not tally with the experience of some fleets. Over a four-year operating cycle, Siemens found a lot of EVs to be cheaper than diesel across most comparable models.

Wayne Warburton, Siemens head of UK Mobility Services, told Fleet News last year: “What’s making the difference is the maintenance and fuel. As leasing companies get a better understanding of how much cheaper they are to maintain, they are no longer loading the SMR from a risk point of view.

“The main driver, however, is the fuel savings on offer to the employee and the business and by moving to a TCO model this is very apparent in making an EV the sensible choice.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Zap-Map app will be distributed to the RAC’s 1,600 patrols via phones, laptops and in-van terminals after the breakdown and recovery company partnered with the charge point mapping app. 

The rollout, says the RAC, will enable them to locate the nearest available, suitable, publicly accessible charge point for its members to get their EV recharged and back on the road again as quickly as possible.

RAC head of technical James Gibson said: “By ensuring all our patrols have Zap-Map on their RAC devices, we’re giving members with EVs extra reassurance that we’re equipped on every level to get them going again, should they ever run out of charge or encounter a faulty charge point.

“While we have the technology to give them an emergency boost, it’s vital we know how far away the nearest suitable charger is so we can give our members enough mobile charge to get them there safely.”

He explained: “We chose to partner with Zap-Map because it’s without doubt the best app for finding the nearest available public charge points for whichever vehicles our members might be driving.

“The level of information provided in the app is excellent and we urge every EV driver to download and use it, as it genuinely makes EV driving even simpler.”

RAC patrols can already provide an emergency charge to flat or severely depleted electric cars with its RAC EV Boost technology.

It can also move stricken vehicles with the All-Wheels-Up rapid recovery system, which gives patrols flatbed towing capability from a standard breakdown van.

Alex Earl, commercial director at Zap-Map, said: “We are always keen to explore new ways of working, especially when they help to make the switch to electric as seamless as possible.

“The RAC has so many patrols on the road, and they will increasingly encounter EV drivers who may be in need of their help.

“We therefore felt it made sense to provide them with easy access to Zap-Map, as it will lead to a better experience for anyone who does run out of charge.

“We will also be looking to get patrols to feedback anything they discover about out-of-order or faulty charge points, ensuring Zap-Map users have access to even more accurate information to search, plan and pay for their electric journeys.”

Last year, the RAC and Zap-Map published a joint report on EV charging provision at supermarkets, which found that the number of chargers at supermarkets had grown by 85% over a 21-month period.

During that time, Tesco had added more EV chargers than any other supermarket.

In January, the RAC put a Renault Zoe Van E-Tech into service. The patrol van will principally be used to attend the RAC’s two most common breakdowns – batteries and tyres, which together account for nearly half of all call-outs. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Fleet transport insurance firm McCarron Coates is urging HGV drivers not to fill their tanks to the top, to avoid liability for diesel spills.

The advice follows the new hierarchy of road users created by the January 2022 edition of the Highway Code.

The new hierarchy sees HGV, bus and coach drivers right at the bottom of the road-user hierarchy, with more responsibility for the safety of all other road users than any other highways-using group.  Sitting above them are motorcyclists and, close to the top, cyclists.

McCarron Coates is highlighting how HGV drivers directly impact on the safety of motorcyclists, in particular, when they spill diesel on the highway.

For a motorcyclist, riding over diesel provides the same lack of friction they would experience if riding over packed snow.  The friction is particularly reduced when diesel is spilt on roundabouts, ramps and bends, precisely where diesel is likely to spill out of trucks with overfilled tanks.  Diesel also impacts on normal braking distances.

Now, with the introduction of the new hierarchy, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that those injured or impacted by diesel spillage, could seek to prove HGV operators liable and suggest they did not exercise the duty of care expected within the new Highway Code.  

“HGVs are now part of the commercial vehicle group deemed to have the highest degree of responsibility for other road users’ safety.  Diesel spillage is a direct way of undermining the safety of a key road user group – motorcyclists,” said McCarron Coates director, Paul Coates.  “If you put the two factors together, it is everything that shouts liability claim.  We believe HGV drivers need to get their house in order fast.”

The penalties for spilling diesel have been in place for some time and the law states that liability for dealing with a road spillage lies with the person who allowed it to occur.  That has traditionally been applied to clean-up costs and Highways England has already warned, in the past few years, of how it can recover up to £70,000 of clean-up costs.

Added to this the potential of an HGV operator being found liable for damage to the environment, under environmental laws of 2009 and 2010, if diesel contaminates land or enters gullies, groundwater or water courses.

Avoiding overfilling is relatively easy to do, if a driver is briefed not to indulge in what is known as ‘brimming’ or ‘necking’, as part of standard company policy.  Drivers should also be instructed to oversee the full filling process, rather than leaving the tank filling and should not try to override automatic nozzles. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News 

IAM RoadSmart is calling for the education of automated technology to be included in the UK driving test to help drivers understand its capabilities and limitations.

Research conducted by the charity in its annual Safety Culture Report, which gauges drivers’ attitudes to key road safety issues over time, highlighted some anxieties around the technology.

More than half of respondents (59%) said that that the growing ability of vehicles to drive themselves is a serious risk to their personal safety.

Opinions did not vary much by age, but women were particularly concerned with 67% rating it as a threat.

Neil Greig, director of policy and research at IAM RoadSmart, said: “Perhaps due to misinformation and an overabundance of technical jargon, the public still remains to be fully convinced new technology which in theory has the potential to reduce many collisions on Britain’s roads, saving thousands of deaths and injuries.

“In order for this trust to be gained, we recommend that proper education of automated technology is included in the UK driving test, giving motorists the opportunity to learn about how it works, which will at least go some way towards alleviating the anxieties many understandably have at present.

“Equally, drivers must also recognise that an over reliance on these systems could also have a negative impact on road safety, with potentially worrying results for motorists and pedestrians alike.”

IAM RoadSmart’s call for education is heightened by the fact that the UK has given the green light to self-driving on motorways using systems such as ALKS (Automatic Lane Keeping Assist), as well as fresh predictions that one in 10 of all vehicles will be at least partially autonomous by 2030.

Greig concluded: “With Britain being the first to support the roll out of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as well as the growth of the industry, it is surely only a matter of time before autonomous vehicles become a very common sight on Britain’s roads.

“This makes our call for more education all the more important, ensuring we all remain in the right lane and make Britain’s roads as safe as they can be.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The overwhelming majority (89%) of drivers say car headlights on UK roads are too bright, leaving them dazzled while driving, new research suggests.

The RAC survey of 2,700 drivers found that the problem also appears to be getting worse with 63% of drivers who get dazzled saying it’s happening more often, with one-in-four (23%) claiming they’re now dazzled a lot more regularly.

Furthermore, almost two-thirds (64%) think they risk causing other drivers to have collisions while two-in-three (67%) say they can’t tell if the headlights of oncoming cars are dipped or on full beam.

RAC spokesperson Rod Dennis said: “There are a number of factors that contribute to whether a headlight dazzles another driver or not, the most important being the angle of the headlights as you look at them.

“If they’re not angled properly – or the driver in the oncoming car has forgotten to dip their headlights – there’s every chance you’re going to get blinded.

“Modern LED headlight technology may also have a part to play as the human eye reacts to the so-called ‘blue light’ from LEDs differently to the ‘yellow light’ of conventional halogen headlights.

“This presents a real irony: the brighter and better your vehicle’s headlights are, the clearer your night-time view of the road ahead is, often it seems at the expense of anyone coming towards you.”

Three-in-10 (30%) of those aged 17-34 think most headlights are too bright, compared to just 19% of those aged 65 and over.

Meanwhile, of those younger drivers who believe some, if not most, car headlights they see are too bright, 70% think the accident risk is increased – while for drivers aged 65-plus the proportion is 62%.

The brightness of some car headlights even appears to be putting motorists off driving at night. Sixteen per cent of those who complain about the intensity of headlights say they avoid driving at night altogether, with women (22%) and those aged 65 and over (25%) much more likely to say they deliberately don’t drive after dark than men (9%).

The RAC’s research also asked dazzled drivers to estimate how long it typically takes for them to be able to see clearly again. While most (65%) said it took between one and five seconds, one-in-10 (12%) said it took upwards of six seconds.

Being unable to see for one second while driving at 60mph means a driver would travel around 13 metres (more than six car lengths), but being blinded for six seconds would see them covering an enormous 160 metres (the equivalent of 40 car lengths), which suggests headlight glare could be compromising safety on the roads.

Almost a quarter of drivers (23%) blamed the LED headlights fitted to an increasing number of modern vehicles, and an almost identical proportion (22%) were not sure if any particular sort of headlight was to blame, while the remaining third (34%) could not distinguish between the different types of bulb anyway.

However, nearly one-in-five (17%) said they felt the problems are caused by the angle of oncoming vehicles’ beams.

The RAC’s research suggests that the increasing prevalence of vehicles that sit higher on the road, specifically SUVs, might also be exacerbating the problem for those in conventional cars that sit much lower, like hatchbacks, saloons and estates.

Six-in-10 drivers (61%) of lower vehicles who said they suffered from glare blamed the headlights on taller vehicles, yet just 28% of drivers of taller vehicles blamed others in similar vehicles.

Motorists’ complaints about the impact some headlights are having on their driving isn’t new, with the RAC first raising the topic in 2018.

At the time, the RAC highlighted that the regulations that govern vehicle lighting, including headlights, are decided on at an international (United Nations) level, with input from UK Government.

Nearly four years on, drivers remain overwhelmingly supportive of the matter being looked into with 82% saying they’d like something done to help reduce headlight glare.

Dennis explained: “The full intensity of your headlights – especially if they’re not angled down correctly – can cause oncoming drivers to momentarily glance away from the road or even be blinded for a few seconds. In short, being dazzled isn’t just about discomfort, it also represents a significant road safety risk.

“But while the apparent dazzling effect caused by headlights is a complicated one, it’s blindingly obvious just how many drivers want the issue looked into by the Government with a view to improving things for the future.

“Despite the RAC first having flagged drivers’ concerns several years ago, we’re not aware anything at all has happened – which will no doubt be extremely disappointing to many drivers.”

Official government data shows that since 2013, there has been an average of 293 accidents a year where dazzling headlights were a contributory factor. Of these, six were fatal accidents.

The actual number may be higher given an investigation may not be able to determine whether or not a collision was directly or indirectly caused by the glare from another vehicle’s headlights. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Euro NCAP has published its first results of 2022, with the Volkswagen Polo and crossover Taigo both earning five stars.

The Megane E-TECH, the first Renault model based on their new dedicated electric vehicle platform, also achieved the top safety rating, as does the new Lexus NX.

The BMW 2 Series Coupé was awarded four stars.

Secretary general, Michiel van Ratingen, said: “Euro NCAP has been setting the standard for car safety for twenty-five years. The next 10 will bring huge challenges, with assisted and automated driving very much at the forefront of the changes ahead.

“Our focus on ADAS – advanced driver assistance systems – over the last ten years or so makes us well-placed to rate these new aspects of vehicle technology and to continue to provide key information to car buyers in the future.”

Euro NCAP has also published the ratings for the Volkswagen ID.5, sharing the 2021 five-star rating awarded to the nearly identical ID.4, and the Ford Tourneo Connect, twin of the 5-star Volkswagen Caddy.

July 2022 sees the introduction of new vehicle safety legislation, mandating the fitment of important safety systems such as autonomous braking and speed assistance on new vehicle types.

Matthew Avery, chief research strategy officer at Thatcham Research, said: “This first set of Euro NCAP results for 2022 represents a great start to the year from a safety perspective. And although there are several conventionally fuelled vehicles here, we are continuing to see more and more EV options for consumers with strong safety credentials.

“It’s also good to see a return to five-star form for Renault. The Megane E-Tech has high levels of all-round safety and an especially good child occupant score of 88% – making it a great EV choice for families.

“VW has added three more five-star vehicles to its range, with the ID.5, Taigo and Polo. It’s particularly pleasing to see a popular car like the VW Polo proving that it is possible to create a lower cost but still super-safe, supermini.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The overwhelming majority of UK motorists support the use of safety camera technology to check for insurance, MOT and road tax offences, claims IAM RoadSmart.

Research, conducted by the road safety charity for its annual Safety Culture Report, revealed that almost nine in 10 (89%) motorists support the idea of safety cameras being used to spot those who flout the rules.

Neil Greig, director of policy and research at IAM RoadSmart, said: “As with previous years, the results from our Safety Culture Report demonstrate that law-abiding citizens are totally in favour of a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to catching those who are a menace to other motorists on UK roads.

“However, despite the vast majority of drivers agreeing for several years now that we should be using the widely available technology, we have at our disposal to catch illegal drivers, many police forces are yet to leverage the equipment to its full capabilities.

“The inconvenience, as well as pain and financial misery uninsured drivers often inflict on other road users should not be overlooked, meaning we should be doing all we can to deter and punish drivers who think the rules don’t apply to them.”

IAM RoadSmart says it is well known that enforcing ‘paperwork’ offences often leads to the detection of other more serious crimes.

“This is why we support drivers in their calls for cameras to be used against those who violate the rules of the road,” added Greig.

Meanwhile, there was also support among respondents for more fines to be handed to those who decide to exceed the speed limit with 82% agreeing that cameras should automatically fine drivers who go more than 10mph over the limit in school zones and urban areas.

There was also support for similar schemes to be enforced for those who decide to exceed the speed limit in residential areas and motorways, albeit to a lesser extent (78% and 64%, respectively).

Greig continued: “Speeding is simply unacceptable, and it’s encouraging to see that the public are largely in support of looking for new ways to identify motorists who are endangering the lives of others.

“Introducing automatic detection will deter drivers who are tempted to speed, which in turn will help reduce the number of casualties on our roads.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News