The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

You would probably be surprised at the number of times I’m asked about the ability to fit a mix and match of 3 baby and booster seats in the back of a particular car. It doesn’t just apply to facilitating babies and youngsters, having say 3 teenagers in the back of your car can be equally demanding spacewise, if not more so than three baby seats.

If you like stats. 180,000 British families have a third or fourth child each year with 13% of families in the EU having 3 or more children. So not surprising that I get asked the question about seating. Now obviously with a 7 seater you have enough space to accommodate your 3 children, albeit you may have to stagger between the 2nd and 3rd row of seats.

According to What Car, who carried out some tests, even the bigger SUV’ s struggle with space. For example the Audi Q7, whilst it is a 7 seater you can accommodate all three of your darlings in one row. On the other hand, the BMW X5 requires you to stagger. As most questions relate to sitting all three children in the one row I’ve pulled out from What Car’s list of cars those that can do just that (even when they still have two more seats behind).

First is the Audi Q7 then the Citroen Grand C4 Spacetourer, it is a 7 seater but can accommodate three in one row. Others are Seat Alhambra (7 Seat), Vauxhall Zafira Tourer (7 Seat), VW Touran (7 Seat). Clearly, by fitting the kids in the one row, it leaves more space in the boot area for luggage. By Graham Hill

Over the years I’ve received the odd complaint about parking on a pavement and receiving a fine as a result, even though it was done so as to avoid blocking the road and only for a few minutes. Even more annoying when there are no other parking restrictions such as single or double yellow lines etc.

The fact is that the law goes back to The Highways Act of 1835 before cars were seen on our streets and as the law currently stands it still specifically refers to the parking of stagecoaches and wagons on pavements. The law is actually quite straightforward when it comes to London, referred to in the Highway Code under section 244 where it categorically states that you MUST NOT park on the pavement anywhere in London so expect a ticket if you are caught by an eagle-eyed warden (or whatever they are called these days) or by a CCTV camera.

The problems for drivers start outside of London where the Highway Code is less clear. Rule 244 says that outside of London you ‘should not’ park on the pavement which leaves the local authority the ability to set its own rules and decide whether to fine or not to fine.

This doesn’t mean that the local council can avoid parking restriction signs. Quite the contrary, they have to be very clear because the law isn’t! It would seem that most local authorities take a fairly relaxed view as long as your parking doesn’t obstruct the infirmed, the blind, the wheelchair user and anyone else who legitimately views the pavement as being there for footfall only.

Some tougher local authorities have not only put up warning signs, stopping cars from parking on pavements, they have also extended into cycle lanes so parking in a cycle lane could also generate a fine. You are able to drive across a pavement in order to access a property and to park where the road signs say you can but in all other circumstances, you could be facing a fine if caught parking on the pavement – as always you’ve been warned! By Graham Hill

According to the findings of the BBC, who surveyed 245 local authorities, yes you should. Because 4 in 10 parking and bus lane fines have been overturned by local authorities during the 5 years 2012 – 2017, During this period 4.3 million appeals were lodged with 1.8 million being successful.

Basingstoke and Dean council in Hampshire overturned the highest proportion of tickets at 90% of the 12,804 appeals lodged. In addition, a quarter of all parking and bus lane fines were eventually canceled. Couldn’t be arsed I guess!

Their excuse was aging equipment meant that often the machines were faulty causing problems with the issuing of tickets. New ticket machines installed in 2017 have apparently reduced the number of successful appeals. Aberdeen council overturned 70% of tickets on appeal, they said that if they had a first time offender it could often cost more to collect the fine than simply overturn it.

That’s what I like to hear, if you appeal a ticket, you are unlikely to pay it if they don’t overturn it so they may as well overturn it and save the bother of chasing the fine. The BBC found that 84 authorities overturned over 50% of all tickets issued on appeal.

When asked by Auto Express an RAC spokesman took a slightly different approach than me, suggesting that with so many appeals succeeding should the tickets have been issued in the first place so should the local authorities review their ticketing procedures? I tend to agree!  By Graham Hill

You may have read the sad story last weekend about the accident that took place in Arizona when a lady was killed by an autonomous Uber car. traveling at 40 miles per hour when it hit her whilst crossing the road with her bike. The car, an XC90, modified for driverless travel and operated by Uber, had a backup driver behind the wheel.

There were no passengers in the car and investigations are underway but the accident has certainly caused US States, the Government and operators to re-think the potential dangers. Arizona chose to impose very few regulations on autonomous cars in order to attract operators away from neighbouring California which attracted a lot of operators and developers but imposed tough regulations.

As a result, it now looks like the US Government will step in and create countrywide regulations that will overrule individual states. It has also caused many operators in both the States and around the rest of the world to review their safety systems and ask whether the drop in regulations in Arizona and other states has caused development in some developers to drop safety down the list of priorities.

The real worry for many is that there was a driver at the controls of the car that had the accident, acting as backup, and still an accident happened. Was the driver locked out of the controls at the time of the accident? The eyes of the world are now on the findings of the investigation. Much depends on what is uncovered as to how soon we will get to see autonomous vehicles on the road.

And if I may make a final point, I don’t see the benefit of a driverless car if it still needs a driver – just putting it out there. By Graham Hill

The level of inappropriate sexual behaviour seems to be reaching epidemic levels. We, as parents, trust our kids to football coaches and clergymen whilst women jump into the backs of black cabs without a second thought for safety, all of us believing that everyone is in a safe environment. But recent major stories have revealed the opposite.

I have now read that inappropriate relationships along with inappropriate sexual behaviour is rife amongst driving instructors and their vulnerable teenage students. To the point where the rules have had to be changed with driving instructors facing removal from the instructor register by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA).

The DVSA have reported that there were 109 investigations into instructors’ misconduct between April 2016 and March 2017. The organisation’s approved driving instructor registrar, Jacqui Turland, has said that she will treat any instructor having sexual relationships with 16 and 17 year old students, consensual or not, as exploitative.

The new rules could see many instructors being banned from giving lessons by being removed from the Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) register. In addition, the DVSA will investigate any claims made by students with regard to ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’ carried out by instructors. This to include the use of sexualised language, making inappropriate or unnecessary physical contact and sending indecent messages or images by phone, email or other means.

In my opinion, simply removing the person from the register isn’t going anywhere near far enough. They have abused a position of trust and should be registered as a sexual offender, if found guilty, then have their private parts removed from their body – yes I have a daughter and granddaughter but that has nothing to do with my views on this matter!

What is wrong with these people? By Graham Hill

Did you know that the police can issue a ‘marker’ on the cars registered to drivers who have previously been disqualified for drink driving? No, I didn’t either but they can and in some counties they do. But it depends upon the force.

The idea is to flag up drivers wh have offended once and keep an eye on them. Research has shown that 12% of those banned for drink driving re-offend, rising to 30% of high-risk offenders caught at more than twice the legal limit. I would caveat that by saying that those % figures apply to those who are caught, with so few traffic cops on the road now I would suggest that the figure is probably higher.

This process doesn’t just apply to drink driving, it can apply to any offender suspected of possible re-offending. The police attache a ‘digital marker’ to the offender’s vehicles. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) cameras can then alert police to the driver’s status to help them better target known offenders.

However, Auto Express found out that only a handful of police forces take advantage of this facility and digitally mark vehicles. Cheshire police have 1,041 active markers which create an intelligence slide for every disqualified motorist containing personal details and any vehicle registered to them at the time of disqualification.

In Cheshire, between 2010 and 2016 57% of all banned drivers lost their licence as a result of drink driving. Merseyside police has a policy that markers will be attached once a driver is convicted and/or disqualified from driving. At the other extreme, the Met and City of London Police are two of the forces that admit to not using intelligence markers.

The Met subsequently clarified, when asked, that they would do so if there was ‘credible evidence’ that someone was driving while disqualified. West Yorkshire, in the meantime, said that they felt the attachment of intelligent markers to all drink drivers was neither ‘justified or proportionate.’ Although they admitted to having 80 live Markers.

Well, you learn something every day! Hope I provided that something for you today. By Graham Hill

If you’re a fan of the Inbetweeners, as I am, you will no doubt identify the characters with old school friends with at least one of them being remembered as a bit of a nutter. Not always on the same page as the rest of us. With this in the back of my mind, I read with dread that Nissan are developing technology that will sync your brain with the car’s technology.

Not only my nutcase schoolmates, and there were more than one, but I have had one of those moments wondering how much damage would be caused if I ran up the back of the car in front! Obviously, I didn’t do it but have you had similar thoughts? Just me then. But thinking something like that could, in my opinion, be misinterpreted!

Nissan and fellow developers, Swiss University Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, think not but are really keen to incorporate the latest tech into their cars. The brain signals will be collected and interpreted to identify whether more or less driving assistance is needed. Thus ensuring that the driver receives sufficient assistance to make his driving safe.

The system will even be able to change settings in preparation for the driver taking action like turning the steering wheel. They suggest that the technology will make autonomous driving more comfortable by sensing discomfort and changing a few settings.

That’s fine when one of my nutty friends is being driven by an autonomous car but with him sitting behind the wheel I dread to think what could go wrong or he could end up in the front row of Stringfellow’s! Hmm, maybe this needs a little more thought. By Graham Hill

I know you love a quirky, but serious, story. You may or not be aware that hitting a number of animals whilst driving must be reported to the police. However, the list doesn’t include cats which has upset a few cat owners according to a survey carried out by Carbuyer magazine.

As the law stands if you his a number of animals, including dogs, horses, cattle and sheep you must report the incident to the police but cats aren’t included. The Carbuyer study found that 59% of motorists were in favour of a law requiring you to report ‘cat incidents’ to the police.

The Labour Party have gone one step further in their calls for reform in domestic pet rules by making microchipping mandatory for cats and a new ruling that would require ‘motorists to report accidents where an animal has been injured’.

Animal rights campaigner, Mandy Lowe, sadly said that if the driver makes no attempt to locate the owner, or take the cat to a vet to be scanned for a microchip, the local authority’s waste disposal team will collect it and dispose of it. I’m not an animal person but that would make me sad if someone’s pet was killed and they didn’t know.

Figures from Highways England show that 320 dead cats were found on motorways and A roads over a 2 year period. More Pussy Power and fairness to cat owners is what I say! Can I say that? Hmmm better move on. By Graham Hill

Increased penalties imposed on those still talking and texting on handheld phones is meant to act as a deterrent in order to prevent drivers from being distracted. We all saw the harrowing scenes on the news when a lorry driver, whilst texting on his phone, careered into the back of a car in a traffic jam.

So it mystified me when car manufacturers started to change their sat nav and in-car controls from a twiddler on the steering wheel, or in the centre console, to touchscreen. In my opinion even more distracting than texting on your mobile.

Years ago all we had to look down at was the speedo and anything that flashed red, warning you to stop. Or if you were a bit of a boy or girl racer the rev. counter warning you before you sent your engine into the next county.

With this in mind, I was shocked to see South Korean tech firm Harman, now owned by Samsung, bring out something close to a cinema screen fitted into the dashboard of a Maserati in order to showcase their latest tech.

Within the screen, that stretched the length of the dashboard was a 12.3” digital instrument screen, a 12.4” curved portrait layout display at the bottom of the centre console, and a widescreen 28” QLED screen that can operate in ‘ultra-slim’ mode or extend upwards to show maps or – wait for it – streaming video!

Are they nuts? Whilst I can understand that they are showcasing what they are capable of doing this is hardly the way forward until we get to autonomous cars that will need something distracting to take away the boredom of not driving. But this tech was fitted into a standard(ish) car.

Harman explained that the Tech could be available for fitting into cars within 18 – 24 months ‘depending on the car maker’s needs.’ They also showcased a similar setup intended for city cars in a Mini. I’m all for building in latest tech for drivers and passengers but I feel they are going one step too far with this latest development. By Graham Hill

A study into the use of mobile speed cameras has found that 20 forces across the UK are now using speed cameras for other purposes. They have found that the quality of the photos taken by the latest equipment is now so good that, even at speed, it can capture the driver and detect whether he or she has a seatbelt on or is holding a mobile phone.

Whilst this is a good move towards safer roads Sarah Sillars, chief executive of IAM RoadSmart, was reported by AutoExpress as saying, ‘What we need are clear and consistent guidelines on what the cameras are being used for.’

I agree that we should be aware that police and local authority cameras can be used to determine whether you are breaking the law. Knowing that local authority town centre cameras can be used to convict those causing criminal damage, or worse, acts as a deterrent. In the same way, knowing that police mobile cameras could be used to catch those not wearing seatbelts or using a mobile phone, would also act as a deterrent as well as provide evidence for prosecutions. The move has to be welcomed given the fact that there are so few police on our roads. By Graham Hill