The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

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 average electric vehicle (EV) driver spends £310 per year on electricity to charge it at home, according to a new study by Uswitch.

The energy comparison service calculated the cost based on a typical EV covering 10,000 miles per year at the UK’s average electricity price per kWh.

It also calculated the cost of charging an EV in different countries around the world, based on the average price and mileage in those territories.

The UK ranked as the 10^th most expensive out of 50 countries in the study, with the most expensive country to charge an electric vehicle revealed as Denmark, followed by Germany and Belgium.

Average annual EV charging cost:

Country	Annual Charging Cost Per Person
Denmark	£486.59
Germany	£412.87
Belgium	£398.12
Italy	£383.37
Ireland	£383.37
Portugal	£353.88
Spain	£339.14
Austria	£324.39
Japan	£324.39
United Kingdom	£309.65

Sarah Broomfield, energy expert at Uswitch, said: “The use of electric vehicles has clear environmental benefits but for many consumers, the choice to move to EVs can be hindered by perceptions about how much it will cost to charge.

“This research shows that, while the costs are not insignificant, the UK is in a strong position compared to countries like Denmark where the price of electricity makes the cost of a charge so much higher.

“Of course, as well as the cost savings of rapid charging points, we also encourage consumers to regularly review their own energy tariffs to ensure they’re getting the best deal possible.”

The current advisory fuel rate (AFR) for an alternative fuel vehicle is 4ppm, meaning drivers can claim £400 for every 10,000 business miles covered. 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

Private parking firms issued almost a quarter (24%) more tickets in 2019-20, compared to the previous 12 months.

Companies handed out 8.4 million tickets to British drivers during the last financial year, RAC Foundation analysis of Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) data has found.

This is up from 6.8 million in 2018-19. The data suggests tickets are being issued at a rate of one every four seconds.

Steve Gooding, director at the RAC Foundation, said: “Anyone who received a private parking ticket last year would have been in plentiful company – yet again the number of keeper addresses released by the DVLA to private parking companies has shot up, this time by almost a quarter.

“To put the numbers in context, if every one of the 8.4 million releases came with a ticket to the next Glastonbury festival, Michael Eavis would have to re-run the event over 60 times to fit everyone in.”

Parking companies can obtain vehicle keeper records from the DVLA to chase car owners for alleged infringements in private car parks. Each resultant ticket can cost drivers up to £100.

Sir Greg Knight MP’s Parking (Code of Practice) Bill officially became law in March 2019 with the aim of bringing rogue parking firms into line or putting them out of business.

It allows for a Government-sanctioned code of practice to replace the current self-regulatory standards that are drawn up by the industry itself.

Gooding said: “The hard graft of creating a new code of practice for the industry is currently under way. This will go out for public consultation before being presented to Parliament.

“But the code is just one part of the new framework that needs to be put in place, including a single appeals body and independent scrutiny of the private parking trade associations and their members.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We are committed to cracking down on the minority of rogue parking operators who exploit motorists.

“That’s why we are working with the British Standards Institution on a Code of Practice for the industry that is fair to both drivers and operators. We expect to consult on this new Code later this year.”

The DVLA charges private firms £2.50 per record.

The agency says its charges are set to recover the cost of providing the information and it does not make any money from the process. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Thinking of taking an electric car? You should read this report as there are some really interesting statistics and information included. A fascinating insight – even if I say so myself.

Charge point provider Pod Point has said that traditional time of use tariffs that provide cheap off-peak energy during the night, ‘like Economy 7’, are a ‘crude tool’.

Pod Point told Fleet News, that while time of use tariffs which target periods of low demand overnight work, the cost of generation has always been more variable and that “this variability is increasing markedly with the proliferation of renewables”.

James McKemey, head of insights at Pod Point, said: “As more renewable energy comes online, there will now be a new variable – high and low supply. With renewable energy like wind and solar proving to be very inexpensive and extremely low carbon, we want to move consumption to match these periods, wherever possible.

“Adaptive pricing tariffs that relay a more accurate picture of the cost of electricity are now available. With increasing regularity, price will go negative – particularly in the somewhat artificial low-demand environment of lockdown. Customers are being paid to consume electricity.

“This reflects the need for the electricity system to find a home for generation that would otherwise need to be constrained.”

It has been suggested that smart EV charging could have saved the National Grid up to £133 million during the lockdown period.

During lockdown, abundant renewable generation and record low energy demand have created balancing challenges for the national electricity system operator.

However, in order to benefit from adaptive pricing tariffs, consumers need to have a high degree of flexibility, as figures from Pod Point show that EVs are only charging for 25% of the time they are plugged into home charge points and EVs are plugged in on average every third day, which offers a “uniquely good opportunity to move around when this high-draw (7kW) activity takes place”.

According to a new study by Uswitch, the average EV driver spends £310 per year on electricity to charge it at home.

It also calculated the cost of charging an EV in different countries around the world, based on the average price and mileage in those territories.

McKemey said: “Despite the savings from time of use tariffs, our data indicates that it’s the minority of drivers taking advantage and charging outside of the early evening peak period. While consumers now have more reason to be engaged, there seems to be a significant cohort happy to just plug in and pay their standard tariffs.

“While adaptive pricing undoubtedly incentivises a good number of customers to move their consumption, we remain concerned about clusters of disengaged customers from a grid protection perspective.”

According to research, ‘Sustainable Electric Vehicle Charging using Adaptive Pricing’ by Professor Wolf Ketter at the University of Cologne, adaptive pricing is needed to ensure grid stability as demand for EVs increases.

Ketter says that grid operators and energy providers can use adaptive pricing to influence EV charging demand, preventing any instability in the grid.

Professor Wolf Ketter at the University of Cologne said: “The pricing scheme will distribute part of peak demand by making it more cost-effective to charge their car in non-peak times.

“This will distribute demand in order to alleviate the grid infrastructure and ensure reliable operation.”

However, adaptive pricing may prove more challenging in the public network, says McKemey. He explained: “Adaptive pricing has worked well in Amsterdam where nearly all charging takes place on the street as off-street parking is rare, meaning it takes a similar role to home/work charging.

“In the UK the situation is reversed on average. Public charging is considered an ‘on demand’ resource and a smaller proportion of charging is done here.

“It is in the home/work environments, where most energy flows into car batteries, that adaptive pricing is likely to be more effective.”

Pod Point says it supports measures to make home charge points “charge smartly by default”, with the option of manual override for customers who need to charge immediately. This proposal formed part of the recent Electric Vehicle Energy Taskforce report.

In May, Pod Point announced it was expanding the number of Homecharge and Commercial customer for whom it can install, by adopting a case-specific approach to installations.

The National Grid Electricity System Operator says it is confident the grid will be able to cope with the increased demand for electricity driven by more EVs, because it is confident in the rise of smart charging.

A National Grid Electricity Operator spokesperson said: “Smart charging and vehicle to grid technology means we can use renewable energy more efficiently, charging when the sun shines or the wind blows and potentially discharging back to the grid at times of peak demand.

“With an estimated 35 million electric vehicles on the roads by 2050 or sooner, we have a fantastic opportunity for the transport and electricity sectors to work together to deliver a low carbon transition that benefits all electricity.”

Bosch recently launched a new mobile app that gives EV drivers access to more than 150,000 charging points across Europe, by allowing users to find and pay for charging with a clear breakdown of costs.

Elmar Pritsch, the president of the Connected Mobility Solutions division of Robert Bosch GmbH, said: “With our recharging services, we are developing a universal key to one of the biggest pan-European recharging networks. In doing so, we are making electromobility even more viable.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Plans to increase walking and cycling in England include new powers for local authorities to fine drivers for motoring offences and the country’s first ‘zero-emission’ city.

The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, outlined the Government’s plans today (Tuesday, July 28), following a commitment made in May to spend £2 billion encouraging more people to choose so-called active travel options.

They include, new enforcement powers that will allow local authorities, rather than the police, to enforce against moving traffic offences such as disregarding one-way systems or entering mandatory cycle lanes.

The change has already largely taken effect in London, where reports suggest it has significantly reduced police workload on traffic offences, allowing officers to prioritise more important matters, while also improving enforcement.

The Government is proposing that motorists be issued with a warning for a first offence, and fines for subsequent offences.

The changes to enforcement are just one small part of a package of measures published by the Department for Transport (DfT) in a new report – Gear change: a bold vision for cycling and walking.

Johnson argues that to build a healthier, more active nation, “we need the right infrastructure, training and support in place to give people the confidence to travel on two wheels.

“That’s why now is the time to shift gears and press ahead with our biggest and boldest plans yet to boost active travel – so that everyone can feel the transformative benefits of cycling.”

The report includes plans to create at least one zero-emission city. It says that the DfT is looking for at least one small or medium-sized city which wants to create a zero-emission transport system, with extensive bike lanes, an all-electric (or zero-emission) bus fleet, and a ban on nearly all petrol and diesel vehicles in the city centre, with deliveries made to consolidation hubs and the last mile being done by cargo bike or electric van.

The initiative could be done in conjunction with the existing competition for an all-electric bus town, it says.

PHYSICAL SEPARATION

Elsewhere in the report, it stresses that the Government will no longer fund new cycle route provision on busy roads which consist of painted markings or cycle symbols.

Instead, it wants to see as many as possible of the existing painted lanes upgraded with physical separation. It says that cycles must be treated as vehicles, not as pedestrians.

New cycle provision which involves sharing space with pedestrians, including at crossings, will also no longer be funded. Again, the report says it wants many of the existing facilities to be upgraded with physical separation.

Furthermore, it argues that a quicker way of providing safe, low-traffic cycling is to close roads to through traffic, usually with simple point closures, such as retractable bollards, or by camera enforcement. This, it says, may be useful where the road is too narrow for a separated cycle lane.

However, it stresses that the closure would only affect through traffic. Residents, visitors, or delivery drivers needing to reach anywhere along the road would still be able to do so – though they might have to approach from a different direction. For example, a small number of routes from key suburbs into a city could become bus and cycling corridors, it said.

Transport secretary Grant Shapps says that coronavirus has provided the country with a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to create a shift in attitudes.

“The measures we’ve set out today in this revolutionary plan will do just that. No matter your age, how far you’re travelling, or your current confidence on a bike – there are plans to help and support you.”

To encourage people to continue to take up cycling, cycle training will be made available for every child and adult who wants it, accessible through schools, local authorities or direct from cycle training schemes.

More cycle racks will also be installed at transport hubs, town and city centres and public buildings, and funding will go towards new bike hangars and on street storage for people who don’t have space to keep a bike at home.

CHANGES TO HIGHWAY CODE

Furthermore, the Government has launched a consultation on the Highway Code to better protect pedestrians and cyclists; improving legal protections for vulnerable road users; and raising safety standards on lorries.

The main alterations to the code being proposed are:

• Introducing a hierarchy of road users which ensures that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others.
• Clarifying existing rules on pedestrian priority on pavements, to advise that drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the road.
• Providing guidance on cyclist priority at junctions to advise drivers to give priority to cyclists at junctions when travelling straight ahead.
• Establishing guidance on safe passing distances and speeds when overtaking cyclists and horse riders.

BIKE REPAIR VOUCHERS

Alongside the launch of the strategy, today the first batch of bike repair vouchers worth £50 will be released.

The scheme aims to help more people choose cycling over public transport, with vouchers released in batches in order to help manage capacity across participating stores.

The first 50,000 will be available just before midnight tonight (Tuesday, July 28) on a first come first served basis to those who register online.

Government says it will work closely with industry during this first pilot launch to monitor its success and adapt the scheme as necessary before rolling it out more widely.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fleet operations and business travel

Sponsored by Sixt.

A discussion hosted by Fleet News on the UK business response to the fleet challenges presented by Covid-19.

A panel of experts will provide an insight into the trends and changes that they are seeing, before leading a debate and discussion among participants, including delegates, on future working practices, changes to travel policies, opportunities offered by mobility solutions and implications for fleet sizes, replacement cycles, funding methods and vehicle type.

Chaired by editor in chief Stephen Briers, in this 45-minute webinar, he will be in conversation with:

Dale Eynon is director of Defra Group Fleet Services and will give a fleet operator view of how covid-19 is affecting fleet operations

Kit Allwinter is senior consultant at AECOM and is a specialist in sustainable and active travel including shared mobility. He will provide a view on how Covid-19 is changing the way people travel and business working practices, etc. and the implications for travel and fleet activity, especially in urban areas

Paul Hollick, chair of the Association of Fleet Professionals. He’ll be representing the views of UK fleets, providing insight into how their operations are likely to evolve and change due to new working practices sparked by the coronavirus pandemic.

Simon Turner, campaign manager at Driving for Better Business, which has created a Covid-19 toolkit, driver app and management portal to help fleets back to business.

Stuart Donnelly, Sixt (sponsor)

Topics:

• Changes to working practices (agile/remote/office working)

• Changes to travel policies (travel to work, travel to client, travel to supplier etc)

• Implications for fleet size (new car/van sales demand)

• Impact on replacement cycles (new car sales demand) and annual mileage

• Impact on demand by vehicle type (EV, Hybrid, Petrol, Diesel)

• Changes in funding preference (fewer traditional 3-4-year contract hire lease agreements and more flexi-hire contracts?)

• Active travel policies (walk, cycle, other)

• Public transport policies (to work, at work)

• Role for other mobility preferences (car share, car clubs, mobility budgets)

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Government is being urged to overhaul motoring taxation and replace it with road pricing as part of its plans for a ‘green’ recovery.

Facing a long-term decline in fuel duty from the electrification of vehicles, the change could stabilise tax revenues, while cutting congestion and emissions.

A poll taken at the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP) annual conference showed a majority in favour of a new road-user charging scheme, with 60% backing the policy. Just more than a quarter (27%) voted against the measure.

The LowCVP survey also found that nine-in-10 respondents (91%) think the time is right for a more radical and rapid change in the decarbonisation of transport.

In a new report, Campaign for Better Transport also says the coronavirus pandemic has provided the Government with the ideal opportunity to overhaul the current tax regime.

It says a “new approach” to road pricing is needed that captures the impacts from use of the road space by vehicles, including congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions.

“Such variable, distance-based charging would reflect the impacts of individual journeys more appropriately and, unlike clean air zones or congestion charges, account for both pollution and congestion at the same time,” it said.

The report – Covid-19 Recovery: Renewing the transport system – details a charging mechanism based on distance travelled, time of day, location and level of emissions.

As the pace of electrification of road transport grows, the report argues that such a regime should provide a mechanism for charging vehicles according to their environmental impact and use of the road space.

Darren Shirley, chief executive of Campaign for Better Transport, said: “As the UK begins the process of recovery, the Government must now focus its ambition on accelerating the shift to sustainable transport.”

The Green Party and campaign group Greener Journeys are also making similar arguments for the introduction of road pricing.

London assembly member and Green Party local transport spokesperson, Caroline Russell, said it was “high time” the UK moved to this “modern and sophisticated” approach.

End fuel duty freeze

Claire Haigh, chief executive of Greener Journeys, wants road pricing introduced alongside ending the freeze in fuel duty.

“The Chancellor should take the opportunity of record low oil prices to increase fuel duty,” she said. “The money should be ring-fenced to incentivise the take-up of cleaner vehicles and improve public transport.

“At the very least, the Chancellor should end the freeze and increase fuel duty in line with inflation.”

The fleet sector has already shown it is receptive to road pricing as a replacement of other road and fuel duties. Fleet News has been calling for the Government to launch a feasibility study since its Fleet Industry Manifesto report in 2015.

Andrew Burn, partner and head of automotive at KPMG, told Fleet News: “It would be good to continue to keep fuel duty flat.”

He also doesn’t expect fleets to see a fuel duty reduction in the future as it does not play into the Government’s green agenda and net zero ambitions.

The fuel duty escalator was introduced in 1990 as an environmental tax to stem the increasing pollution and congestion from road transport, but it has been frozen since 2011.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates that the failure to increase rates in line with CPI inflation has cost the Treasury £5.5bn a year since 2010-11.

Revenue from fuel duties now stands at £28bn a year, which is 1.3% of national income. Revenue peaked at 2.2% of national income in 1999–2000. Had it remained at that level the Exchequer would currently be getting an extra £19bn.

In its Green Budget, published late last year, IFS highlighted how revenue from fuel duties had fallen since 2000 and called on the Government to consider road pricing to maintain its tax take.

New analysis by the RAC shows that fuel duty was down by £2.4bn in April and May compared to the same time last year.

Revenue from diesel duty (charged at 57.95p per litre like petrol) was hardest hit. Despite being the fuel of business, duty on diesel fell by 49% during April and May to £1.5bn compared to £2.9bn in 2019.

Revenue from duty on petrol fell to £251 million in May – the lowest figure since 1990 – and £383m in April, making a total of £634m.

Over the same two months in 2019 duty on petrol brought in £1.6bn (£799m in April and £822m in May).

In terms of monthly tax from fuel duty, the £946m raised in May was the 33rd lowest figure – only months from the early 1990s were lower when there were some 24m vehicles on Britain’s roads compared to the 31.8m today.

HMRC fuel duty receipts – £m
	Petrol	Diesel	Combined total
Apr-20	383	815	1,198
May-20	251	695	946
Total	634	1,510	2,144
Monthly average	317	755	1,072
Apr-19	799	1,528	2,327
May-19	822	1,411	2,233
Total	1,621	2,939	4,560
Monthly average	811	1,470	2,280
£ change 2019-2020	-987	-1,429	-2,416
% change 2019-2020	-61%	-49%	-53%

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes, described the lost tax revenue as a “further blow” to Treasury coffers.

“The temptation for the Chancellor might be to recoup some of the losses by increasing fuel duty, but with the country staring down the barrel of one of the sharpest recessions on record such a move would risk choking any economic recovery at a time when drivers and businesses are most struggling,” explained Lyes.

“This perhaps gives the Government a glimpse into the future of when fuel duty revenues start to decline more sharply with the rise of electric and other alternatively fuelled vehicles. Treasury officials might want to start thinking about how the Government approaches such a scenario considering fuel duty normally generates around £27bn a year.”

Fuel duty receipts will have increased as lockdown restrictions were eased, but the latest fuel sales figures from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show there is still some way to go.

Fuel sales at filling stations across the UK were 23% below pre-lockdown levels at the end of June. Diesel sales were 20% lower than before lockdown and petrol sales were 26% lower than would be expected.

In the eight weeks prior to lockdown being imposed on March 23, average daily road fuel sales were 17,690 litres per filling station.

The lowest average daily figure recorded was 2,500 litres, on April 12, at the peak of the pandemic.

Ashley Barnett, head of consultancy at Lex Autolease, told Fleet News that even if individual mileages remain below average, there are likely to be more vehicles on the roads as people avoid public transport due to the coronavirus.

“While Treasury income from fuel duty has dropped during lockdown, an increase in vehicles on the roads would address some of this.

“Longer-term, the reduction in income from fuel duty is the ‘elephant in the room’ when discussing the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), but we are many years away from there being a significant reduction in the annual amount generated.

“As the momentum shifts away from petrol and diesel, there may come a time where the Chancellor feels fuel duty can be increased, to encourage drivers who are cautious about making the switch to electric.

“At the same time, when EVs become sufficiently ‘mass market’, a more appropriate taxation method than fuel duty may need to be considered, especially if they continue to be cheaper than petrol and diesel on a wholelife cost basis.”

Tom Brewer, head of sales and marketing at Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS) Fleet, added: “Clearly, the level of (electric vehicle) uptake now being seen will impact future tax receipts through reductions in company car tax, VED and fuel duty.

“Longer term alternatives to emissions-based taxation such as road pricing may well be viable in replacing VED and/or fuel duty.

“A debate on future taxation models is clearly going to be needed as the Exchequer looks to balance the books.”

PUBLIC FINANCES

Balancing the books will prove a difficult task for the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, with the UK economy facing its biggest decline in 300 years.

The OBR suggests that the economy will shrink 12.4% in 2020, with borrowing expected to increase to the highest peacetime level.

The latest data shows borrowing grew by 1.8% in May.

It leaves the Government on course to borrow £372bn this year to pay for the shortfall between tax revenues and public spending.

In a recent HMRC report, the impact of coronavirus on Government coffers was visible in reductions in receipts collected across a number of taxes.

Tax officials said reductions were due to a combination of changes to payment timing, responses to Covid-19 policies and the emerging economic impacts of the pandemic.

The report added: “At this stage it is not possible to fully unpick how much of the fall in tax receipts relates to changes to the timing of payments and how much relates to changes in the underlying economic activity. The effects of Covid-19 on HMRC tax receipts will become clearer over time.”

The data showed total HMRC receipts for April and May 2020 were £45.2bn lower than in April and May 2019, mainly due to VAT (£25.6bn), income tax, capital gains tax and national insurance contributions (£9.8bn) and corporation tax (£5.4bn).

The OBR has also warned that the economy will not return to its pre-coronavirus size until the end of 2022, while unemployment is expected to rise to 12% by the end of this year, falling back to 10.1% in 2021.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show the number of workers on UK company payrolls fell by 649,000 between March and June.

However, unemployment has not yet surged, as many predict it eventually will, because large numbers of employers have put workers on the Government’s furlough scheme.

The latest data shows that more than nine million private sector workers are, effectively, on the Government payroll.

It should have therefore come as no surprise that the Chancellor’s summer statement failed to deliver any incentives for the fleet industry and the wider automotive sector.

So far, the Government’s plans for a ‘green’ economic recovery have focused on jobs and softening the blow of phasing out the furlough scheme.

In a £30bn give-away, Sunak announced a VAT cut on hospitality and offered firms a £1,000 per employee bonus to keep furloughed staff.

A much publicised possible scrappage scheme for electric vehicles (EVs) did not materialise, neither did a mooted VAT cut for the automotive sector.

SMMT ‘DISAPPOINTED’

Mike Hawes, chief executive of UK automotive trade body, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), said he was “bitterly disappointed” the Chancellor had stopped short of supporting the industry.

However, a scrappage scheme costing hundreds of millions of pounds, proved a step too far for a Government facing record debt and a dwindling tax take.

Ben Creswick, managing director of JCT600 Vehicle Leasing Solutions (VLS), argued: “A scrappage scheme would not benefit the company car market, but existing incentives such as the plug-in car grant and new company car tax rates, which allow a driver to have an electric car for just a few pounds a month, are doing the job.

“The range of EVs is increasing and the low total cost of ownership means they are finding their way on to choice lists. Availability of product is the only concern.”

Paul Hollick, chair of the Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP), says its time to consider how the Government might balance the books. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News