The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Are our roads safe enough? Safety organisations and fleet operators think not and are calling for a re-introduction of safety targets called ‘road safety reduction targets. They were first introduced in 1987 but were axed by the Government in 2010.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

The targets were believed to have helped to reduce road deaths and serious injuries on the road each year. Whilst the targets were discontinued in 2010 the road safety community believe that we are now missing a vital component in the tools that make roads safer.

Trade journal, Fleet News, along with the ACFO and the BVRLA have joined forces to try to convince the Government that they need to re-introduce the targets. However, the DfT have said, ‘Britain continues to have some of the safest roads in the world, but every death is a tragedy and we are determined to do more.’

He went on to explain, ‘We are making sure we have the right legal, education and investment frameworks in place to make our roads safer. We have already introduced new laws, given the police tougher powers to tackle dangerous driving and are investing billions to improve the conditions of our road network.

Local authorities are best placed to decide how to use these frameworks to make their roads safer, rather than having centralised national targets.’ Richard Owen, Road Safety Analysis operations director, pointed out that the current Government was opposed to use targets to dictate policy. He said, ‘An example of this is hospital waiting times. This was forcing hospitals to meet numbers and it was having a detrimental impact on patient care.’

However, UK safety bodies believe that targets do make a difference. There is a wider EU target to reduce road fatalities by 50% by 2020, but a lack of clear UK targets takes away focus and sends a message that road safety is not a priority. The DfT’s Reported Road Casualties In Great Britain Annual Report 2014 shows that 1,775 people died on the roads (a 4% increase on the year before). A further 22,807 were seriously injured (a 5% increase).

Casualties of all severities rose to 194,477 in Great Britain in 2014, an increase of 6% over 2013, interrupting a steady downward trend since 1997. Pedestrians and bike riders bore the brunt of the increase. Pedestrian deaths increased by 446, an increase of 12%, accounting for three quarters of the overall rise in fatalities. Serious injuries to cyclists rose by 8% to 3,401continuing a long term trend that has been ongoing since 2004.

In response to the figures Julie Townsend, deputy chief executive at safety charity Brake commented, ‘We should be under no illusions as to the seriousness of these figures’. Brake join forces with the RAC Foundation and the Institute of Advanced Motorists in calling for the re-introduction of Safety Targets. I find myself agreeing. By Graham Hill

I wasn’t surprised to read that over 1,000 drivers each year appeal MOT test results. However I was surprised to read that these appeals were against a pass rather than a fail. Only 100 appeal a fail each year with about 40 being successful.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

So why would anyone appeal a pass? As it turns out it is quite logical, they are customers who have bought a used car with a new or relatively new MOT that they subsequently feel is dodgy and want to use the results of the appeal to either return the car or take a dealer to court.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) confirmed that over 1,250 motorists contacted them in 2014 believing that their car should have failed. The number is increasing as this figure is up by 100 from 2013.

As for those appealing a fail whilst only 116 in 2014 this is the highest over the last 5 years. Of the 1,250 appeals against passed cars only 22% were successful but that shows that nearly a quarter of cars sold with a Full MOT are not roadworthy.

That is frightening. The DVSA carry out an annual Compliance Survey whereby they carry out retests on recently tested cars. They found that 15% of all MOT’s are wrong. Over 11% were given a fail when in fact they passed and 18% were given a pass when they should have failed.

I find that even more frightening! What is wrong with our testing systems whether they are for safety reasons or emission reasons. This isn’t good enough. By Graham Hill

As we know many local authorities have questioned the effectiveness of speed cameras with some switching them off completely as they found them just too expensive to maintain. But the presence of speed cameras, whether working or not, are considered to be braking ‘black spots’.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

A study carried out by driver data firm, Wunelli found that hard braking was on average 6 times more likely to occur just before a speed camera with some sites up to 11 times more likely. The report raises concerns that speed cameras actually encourage poor driver behaviour with drivers braking hard within 50 meters of a camera then speeding up immediately after.

The conclusions were reached after analysing data collected collected over a billion miles of motoring resulting in a top ten of speed camera braking black spots. The events were collected within 50 meters of each camera and between 50 and 100 meters in residential areas with 30, 40 and 50mph speed limits.

Founding director of Wunelli, Paul Stacey, explained that he wasn’t in favour of speeding and wasn’t opposed to speed cameras but the report questioned the value of speed cameras as safety tools. He went on to say, ‘They appear top encourage poor driving behaviour. After hard braking, drivers often speed up again.’

Looking at the top ten, number 1 on the list is on the M4 near to Boston Manor rail station, West London. They recorded 57 hard braking events within the 50 meter range, that is 11 times the average. In 2^nd place, again 11 times the norm, was a camera on Rochdale Road in Middleton, Greater Manchester. Followed by a camera on the A4146 Leighton Buzzard Road in Hemel Hempstead, Herts running at 8 times the average number of events.

The highest number of single hard-braking events was found at the camera on the A40 Western Avenue, Ruislip, North West London. Here drivers hit the brakes 261 times within 50 meters of the camera. The usual response came from the RAC Foundation pointing out that the law is the law and no-one should be exceeding the speed limit in the first place which would mean that drivers wouldn’t have to slow down at the sight of a speed camera. Really?

Well who’d have thought? The fact is that there must be a better way of controlling speed, someone needs to get their thinking cap on. By Graham Hill

I only found out recently that the fine for driving an uninsured car is just £300. No wonder so many young drivers drive without insurance because the fine, if they get caught, is considerably less than it would cost to take out insurance in the first place.

Even with the cheapest car the premium could be many times the fine. It must be time to increase the fine to a minimum of £5,000 for driving without insurance along with compulsory confiscation of the vehicle. Sadly we don’t seem to have punishments in this country to fit the crime. By Graham Hill

OK time for a little bit of insider information. It would seem that the European regulators are taking a very close look at pollution and not because of the VW/Audi situation.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

In fact it has nothing to do with what comes out of the car but more about what gets sucked into the car. Concern is increasing as congestion reaches an all time high on British roads and with many cars and vans not fitted with stop start technology or have it but switch it off, if you are sitting in a queue of traffic there is a concentration of pollutants being sucked into the cabin.

Executive electric vehicle maker Tesla revealed the investigations when they launched their new Model X SUV with the weirdest back doors that open upwards in the old seagull style. They have a new system called Bioweapon Defence Mode (seriously) which features two air filters that Tesla boss Elon Musk says will give the car, ‘air cleanliness levels comparable to a hospital operating room’.

As Musk pointed out, they are ahead of the game. It doesn’t take a mastermind to work out that the emissions from the idling car in front has to go somewhere and it makes sense that most finds its way into the car behind.

Not surprisingly, having taken steps to stop children from being damaged by cigarette smoke it is logical that other in car pollutants will come under attack. You heard it here first. By Graham Hill

You know how sometimes you see an idea and think ‘that is completely dopey.’ Then after a while you think, ‘actually that wasn’t such a bad idea’ but then after further mental analysis decide it was pretty dopey after all? Just me then eh? But this is what I thought when I read an article based on the proposal by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) as the driving test reached its 80^th birthday earlier this year.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

They suggested that we should incorporate eco driving into the driving test. Using a scheme similar to that used by Austria of all places. They carry out an initial assessment, as we do, but after a probationary period they carry out a further examination made up of 5 parts. Moving towards dopey. During the probationary period they operate zero tolerance towards driving offences and blood alcohol levels.

Not so dopey, then the new drivers undergo 2 x fifty minute improvement lessons within 2 to 4 months of the first practical test. A day’s further training with a drive psychologist and 2 more 50 minute advanced improvement driving courses complete the test. It all sounds very admirable (and expensive) but with gallons of testosterone flushing around the arteries of our young drivers will all this make the slightest of difference?

Having said that I would like to see all new applicants, as a prequel to their theory test, have to watch the films shown on the speed awareness courses. So summing up I think the idea is pretty dopey and I’m not alone. Graham Hurdle, MD of E-training World pointed out that the driving test has massively evolved since its introduction in 1935 but if we tighten things up too much it will drop the pass rate which would have a substantial effect on the economy as driving keeps business moving (no pun intended).

The driving test can only ever be a snapshot of a driver’s ability at the time he or she takes their test but would the proposals prevent more accidents amongst new drivers? Probably not! If you have a view drop me a note. By Graham Hill

Have you ever heard the expression ‘Real World’? It’s used about our royalty, ‘They don’t live in the real world’. When talking about wealthy people, they don’t know what it’s like to be in the real world. Dating men or women on dating sites, it’s not like dating in the real world.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

And so on and so forth, but what is the real world? And where is it? Who are its inhabitants? Just recently journalists and reporters have gone into meltdown over ‘real world’ testing when it comes to emissions from vehicles as well as the miles per gallon they return in test conditions compared to ‘the real world’.

For years What Car has been testing cars in ‘real world’ conditions to provide a more accurate MPG reading. But in my opinion it’s an absolute nonsense because the real world simply doesn’t exist except in the minds of each individual. If a driver was to drive through the middle of London, would that be extra urban conditions in the ‘real world’ or would it be more accurate to drive through the centre of Leeds.

And what time of day would be more accurate? 11.00 in the morning or 5.30 at the height of the rush hour? How would you measure urban or motorway driving. I would measure it on the motorway I use most, the M25 on which I consider it to be my birthday and Christmas combined if I keep moving for the whole of the trip.

OK I might agree that the testing conditions could be tweaked a little which may result in cars seen to be achieving a few miles to the gallon less than currently shown in the manufacturer’s handbooks. But what about CO2 emissions? Supposing we find that the readings have been out by a few grams per kilometre as a result of the changes to the tests to make them ‘real world’ tests?

The Government has set its tables for benefit in kind tax and road tax for the next few years so would drivers be hit with additional costs? Yes, they probably would because the Government can’t suddenly say that they will increase a banding from 99g/km of CO2’s to 109g/km because of miscalculations by car manufacturers.

The changes would affect motorists’ pockets because the Government has already established that they want to pull down CO2 emissions to the 99g/km level and ultimately to zero emissions. Speed, weather conditions, temperature and the driver of the car can all affect the fuel consumption and emissions so should we change the way cars are tested when there are so many variables?

Maybe the activists should be careful for what they wish for. The changes might just come back and bite them, you and other motorists on the bum! The fact is that manufacturers will still continue to try to find ways to improve the emissions of their cars, they are obliged to, irrespective of the way that cars are tested. By Graham Hill

Whilst I happily sit on the wall over the whole EU thing – should we be in or should we be out, there are certain things that they do that provide us with great benefits. One of these is standardisation. Safety issues sometimes require a group of people to get their heads together in order to agree a standard because clearly we can’t leave things to the individual manufacturers.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

Have I ever told you about the Ford Pinto back in the 1970’s? At the time it was the best selling compact car in the US. In fact there were 11.5 million of these cars on the road but they had a major fault. The fuel tank was mounted in the back of the car in a position where, if the car was shunted in the rear, the tank would explode. More than 500 people died as a result of the fuel tank exploding and bursting into flames with many more suffering severe burns.

This only came to light because one of the burn victims sued Ford. It then turned out that Ford engineers were fully aware of the danger posed by the fuel tank but company executives carried out a cost benefit analysis with shocking results. They decided that the benefits of fixing the problem in lives saved and injuries prevented were not worth the cost of $11 per car to fix the problem on all of the Pintos.

They calculated that if the tanks weren’t repaired there would be a further 180 deaths and 180 burn injuries. They then applied a cost of $200,000 per life and $67,000 per injury. They added to this the cost of repair and replacement of cars as a result of the tank explosions and they came up with a cost of $49.5 million but to make the cars safer at a cost of $11 per vehicle would cost $137.5 million so they chose not to repair all the cars already on the road.

When this came out in court the jury found against Ford and awarded the plaintiff $2.5 million in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages (later reduced to $3.5 million). So my point is that if manufacturers were left to make their own decisions on safety I suspect that cars would be nowhere near as safe as they are now.

So on the plus side we can feel comfortable that when we get into any car across Europe we are protected by some very high standardised safety levels. God forbid we ever leave our safety in the hands of just the manufacturers. By Graham Hill

Having been in this industry for years there are few things that have caused me serious concern but the rapid growth in sophisticated car theft over the last few months is one of them. One leasing company won’t allow you to lease a Land Rover car without having a tracker fitted which can add quite a bit to the monthly rental.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

Thieves are even targeting vans now, not only for the money they can make on the van but also the goods or tools that are being carried around in the back. The latest high tech thefts are perpetrated by gangs using gadgets that reprogram the electronics controlling keyless entry and start systems.

There has been a lot of publicity around these thefts but few people know that the surge in thefts has come about as a result of a change in European legislation which countered anti-competitiveness by making it easier to obtain replacement keys and the ability to program them. Vehicles on the thieves radar are high end Audis, BMW’s Range Rovers and Ford Transit Vans.

Within hours of being stolen cars and vans are being exported in containers, either whole or in parts, abroad as far away as Africa. Manufacturers have been advised to look into this problem as a matter of urgency. Changes to the electronics have been called for as well as improved marking methods to identify stolen parts.

The warning came after BMW said that it had fixed a security flaw that allowed hackers to unlock the doors of up to 2.2 million Rolls-Royce, Mini and BMW vehicles. As a result the police have stepped up their anti theft operations. They launched Operation Endeavour which was a campaign against keyless car theft. Scotland Yard reported that they had made 84 arrests and an 800 strong team of officers from the Met, Kent, Essex, Hampshire, Surrey and Thames Valley seized 222 vehicles after monitoring 20 arterial roads.

In another operation a search at Felixstowe docks found 5 Range Rovers believed to have been stolen from Surrey, South Woodford and Islington in containers bound for Kenya. Hundreds of parts from a dozen BMW cars, stolen in East London, were headed for Cyprus. In order to hide the stolen parts they were stashed within a pile of motorbike parts.

The police believed that the car parts were to be forward shipped. The police and manufacturers are working on the problem but in the meantime the police are suggesting that drivers revert to 80’s technology by fixing highly visible steering and brake locks which may be enough to deter a crook from breaking in. From my point of view the law needs to be changed.

We allow people to sell the gadgets and others to buy freely online. The law only says that you must not use the equipment for illegal purposes. It should be illegal to sell or buy this equipment unless you are properly authorised to do so. Not to do this is ridiculous. By Graham Hill

Related articles

• The UK’s Top 10 Most Stolen Cars – BMW X5 Takes Pole Position for 6 Years Running (themotortradeclub.com)

I’ve spoken about this subject before and whilst I support the objectives of the Government it is simply introducing a law that is virtually impossible to police. I’m talking about smoking in cars with children under 18 also in the car. From the 1^st October the ban on smoking in cars with children under 18 present comes into force.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

This follows a similar ban in Wales and is being considered in Scotland. The ban won’t apply to anyone smoking alone and it won’t apply to convertibles with the roof down. Public Health Minister, Jane Ellison, said, ‘Three million children are exposed to second hand smoke in cars putting their lives at risk.’

OK as a lifetime non-smoker I have never got my head around the need to suck smoke into my lungs, it simply makes no sense at all. Having said that I guess the main reasons why I would never partake is the sight of my dad, first thing in the morning, coughing and spitting his lung lining into the toilet every day having smoked the best part of 40+ untipped cigarettes the previous day, as he did most days.

For a child that was an incredibly frightening experience. My dad smoked in the car but always with the window open – thanks dad and we all (my sister and brother) carried around with us the delightful stench of smoke. So I’m against smoking but I also uphold the individual rights of people to smoke if they want to as long as it doesn’t affect me.

I also agree that smokers should not smoke in cars with children aboard but if you are such an uncaring parent to do it in the first place is a law going to make any difference? Parents shouldn’t smoke in confined spaces with children around through a sense of responsibility, not because the law says so. We are gravely lacking basic life skills in our education system and I’m about to go on a mission to change it.

Kids might leave school knowing the capital of various countries around the world or what the Boston Tea Party was all about but they need basic health and safety skills. Finance skills are essential such as how to open a bank account, take out a credit card and arrange a mortgage. Isn’t it time we educated our kids better in these areas rather than feel the need to introduce laws to prevent people doing things that one would think would be common sense! Good grief! G gets off his soap box! By Graham Hill