What do British motorists dislike the most?
at Friday, January 30, 2009
As a Contract Hire company we are generally in much closer contact with our clients and customers, than perhaps a main dealership. This is because a contract hire company supplies vehicles across the whole range of manufacturers, rather than a dealership that will generally just supply their particular marque, so contact with our clients and customers tends to be much more frequent.
As a result of this increased contact we are generally more aware of our client's complaints about motoring in Britain and of course we see the evidence of their complaints with regard to increasing numbers of speeding and parking fines. This is because with both contract hire and personal contract hire, the speeding, parking and congestion charge fines come directly to us, as we are shown in the registration document, as the registered keeper.
Probably the biggest complaint amongst motorists is speeding fines. Although interestingly many of those who complain, consider speeding to be dangerous and believe that it should be curbed. What they object to is what they feel is unfair entrapment; an example of this is the variable speed limits on motorways, the speed limit can go from 70 mph, to 50, to 40 and then sometimes back to 50 again over a relatively short stretch of motorway.
The authorities say that the variable speed limit is designed to improve traffic flow, although they do not appear to have seriously considered a ban on heavy goods vehicles overtaking on motorways. This is the case on large sections of motorway in the Netherlands, which has the effect of increasing road capacity. Safety cameras are also designed to cut accidents and there is some evidence, for example on the M25 they have indeed cut accidents. However many motorists believe that it is simply a way of catching a motorist unaware and to impose a fine in order to increase government revenues. An interesting question with regard to variable speed limits is how safe is it for motorist to be constantly looking for warnings of changing speed limits and then at their speedometer? Even if the driver has cruise control they still take their eyes off the road each time they reset their cruise control.
Perhaps more sensibly The Department of Transport is installing average speed detectors on some 500 miles of motorways. This would be much fairer system because rather than punishing a motorist for a momentary lapse it measures a motorist's average speed over a certain distance. Rather like in France where you can be timed between the tolls and fined for speeding exceeding the speed limit.
The government has installed many safety cameras on dual carriageways, again they say to reduce accidents and the motorists say to increase government revenues. The conclusion drawn by many experts is that whilst they do improve safety, the government has exaggerated the degree to which they are helpful in reducing serious accidents. What then could be the government's motives for exaggerating the benefit? It's difficult to conclude that it is anything other than the financial gain in fining large numbers of motorists.
A survey carried out recently by IAM Motoring Trust, revealed that a majority of motorists (78%) still feel that that safety cameras are a good thing. Although 12% less than when the same survey was carried out in 1999, only a minority of those surveyed believing that they were introduced for safety rather than raising revenue. This appears to suggest they feel that "safety cameras" can save lives in spite of the fact that the government's reasons for deploying them are cynical. It was claimed that the county of Northamptonshire initially targeted the town of Northamptonshire with safety cameras but switched the targeted area to the M1 and A14 to catch passing motorists and avoid political fallout locally. Surely if the purpose is to make the roads safer rather than raising revenue, they would want their own town safer. The problem is that this can create resentment and many inevitably ask what is happening with this extra revenue that is being generated, because we have a very poor and under funded road system compared with many other European countries.
Another example of what seems to be purely an exercise in raising additional revenue from motorists through speeding fines, are roads, sometimes on the outskirts of a town, which appear to have illogically low speed limits. The road is often wide and straight and by all reasonable measures safe, however it will have a 30mph speed limit. A lot of motorists get caught out, because everything about the road suggests that it is a road with a 40mph speed limit and these are favourite spots for the police to put mobile detection units.
A motorist who receives a fine for exceeding the speed limit on one of these roads may feel that theirs is an isolated case. However as a contract hire and leasing company we know different; because all our client's fines are sent to us and it is quite extraordinary the number of motorists fined for speeding on exactly the same stretches of road. Suggesting that these are spots where the government feels they can generate some easy revenue.
If safety and saving lives were the government's main aim, then imposing variable speed limits and safety cameras in the vicinity of schools would seem much more logical. In one report into child fatalities, it was stated that a child hit by a car travelling at 20 mph had a 95% chance of survival, at 30 mph a 50% chance and 40 mph only 10% survived. When a car travelling at 40 mph hits a child, they will be thrown up to 30 metres. There would not seem to be a better reason for installing safety cameras and imposing a variable speed limit at certain times of the day in these areas. One reason for not doing so could be that it is not cost effective.
Parking restrictions is another area of which motorists complain bitterly; again motorists appear to be in complete agreement with parking restrictions that serve to improve traffic flow and avoid congestion. In many towns and cities however it is difficult to see any reason for the yellow lines, other than to make motorists park on meters or in Pay and Display zones. There are some towns that then keep the parking restrictions in place on a Sunday, catching out many motorists, who not unnaturally do not expect there to be restrictions on a Sunday
Over zealous traffic wardens are a source of a great deal of complaints amongst motorists. Of course a traffic warden must do his or her job but as long as you have traffic wardens who are rewarded based on the number of tickets that they issue, you will have tickets issued unfairly. Traffic wardens can be seen checking the position of parked vehicles and if they are even a fraction outside of the parking bay, issuing a ticket. The BBC reported in 2007 that a traffic warden in Enniskillen Northern Ireland issued 2,590 parking tickets in a little over 6 months. It is important to remember that if a traffic warden is issuing a ticket, for it to be valid; they must affix it to the vehicle. If you arrive at your vehicle and you advise the warden that you are going and they say "too late I have already started to write the ticket" you are quite within your rights just to drive off.
It has been claimed that the congestion charge has reduced unnecessary journeys into central London but who is to say they were unnecessary? Many motorists say that their journey was necessary but they are not in a financial position to pay the congestion charge on a regular basis.
Ken Livingston was planning to introduce a new charge of 25 for cars with high fuel consumption. Porsche Cars GB was mounting a challenge in the courts, they claimed, "It is an illegal use of power by the mayor". Porsche believed it to be "unfair and disproportionate" and filed an application for a judicial review in the High Court. However Ken Livingston lost his position to Boris Johnson who was elected the new Mayor of London, he made it clear that he will scrap the 25 charge.
Many ask why is it that we in Britain pay Road Fund Licence and such high levels of duty on fuel compared with many countries but still have a very poorly funded road system. In analysis carried out by The Institute of Fiscal Studies in 2005, they revealed that taxation represented 69.9% of the cost of unleaded fuel and 67.3% of the cost of diesel. Motorists additionally pay the government substantial sums in speeding and parking fines. Perhaps it's just as well that the rates for contract hire and leasing in the UK are some of the lowest in the world, at least going some way to compensate the unfortunate British motorist who seems to be taxed and fined at every turn.
Should you have any queries or questions with regard to Fleet Management, Licence checking, Contract Hire, Personal Contract Hire, Lease Purchase or vehicle Hire Purchase, please do not hesitate to contact us. Bowater Price plc 01494 536 536. www.bowaterprice.com.
As a result of this increased contact we are generally more aware of our client's complaints about motoring in Britain and of course we see the evidence of their complaints with regard to increasing numbers of speeding and parking fines. This is because with both contract hire and personal contract hire, the speeding, parking and congestion charge fines come directly to us, as we are shown in the registration document, as the registered keeper.
Probably the biggest complaint amongst motorists is speeding fines. Although interestingly many of those who complain, consider speeding to be dangerous and believe that it should be curbed. What they object to is what they feel is unfair entrapment; an example of this is the variable speed limits on motorways, the speed limit can go from 70 mph, to 50, to 40 and then sometimes back to 50 again over a relatively short stretch of motorway.
The authorities say that the variable speed limit is designed to improve traffic flow, although they do not appear to have seriously considered a ban on heavy goods vehicles overtaking on motorways. This is the case on large sections of motorway in the Netherlands, which has the effect of increasing road capacity. Safety cameras are also designed to cut accidents and there is some evidence, for example on the M25 they have indeed cut accidents. However many motorists believe that it is simply a way of catching a motorist unaware and to impose a fine in order to increase government revenues. An interesting question with regard to variable speed limits is how safe is it for motorist to be constantly looking for warnings of changing speed limits and then at their speedometer? Even if the driver has cruise control they still take their eyes off the road each time they reset their cruise control.
Perhaps more sensibly The Department of Transport is installing average speed detectors on some 500 miles of motorways. This would be much fairer system because rather than punishing a motorist for a momentary lapse it measures a motorist's average speed over a certain distance. Rather like in France where you can be timed between the tolls and fined for speeding exceeding the speed limit.
The government has installed many safety cameras on dual carriageways, again they say to reduce accidents and the motorists say to increase government revenues. The conclusion drawn by many experts is that whilst they do improve safety, the government has exaggerated the degree to which they are helpful in reducing serious accidents. What then could be the government's motives for exaggerating the benefit? It's difficult to conclude that it is anything other than the financial gain in fining large numbers of motorists.
A survey carried out recently by IAM Motoring Trust, revealed that a majority of motorists (78%) still feel that that safety cameras are a good thing. Although 12% less than when the same survey was carried out in 1999, only a minority of those surveyed believing that they were introduced for safety rather than raising revenue. This appears to suggest they feel that "safety cameras" can save lives in spite of the fact that the government's reasons for deploying them are cynical. It was claimed that the county of Northamptonshire initially targeted the town of Northamptonshire with safety cameras but switched the targeted area to the M1 and A14 to catch passing motorists and avoid political fallout locally. Surely if the purpose is to make the roads safer rather than raising revenue, they would want their own town safer. The problem is that this can create resentment and many inevitably ask what is happening with this extra revenue that is being generated, because we have a very poor and under funded road system compared with many other European countries.
Another example of what seems to be purely an exercise in raising additional revenue from motorists through speeding fines, are roads, sometimes on the outskirts of a town, which appear to have illogically low speed limits. The road is often wide and straight and by all reasonable measures safe, however it will have a 30mph speed limit. A lot of motorists get caught out, because everything about the road suggests that it is a road with a 40mph speed limit and these are favourite spots for the police to put mobile detection units.
A motorist who receives a fine for exceeding the speed limit on one of these roads may feel that theirs is an isolated case. However as a contract hire and leasing company we know different; because all our client's fines are sent to us and it is quite extraordinary the number of motorists fined for speeding on exactly the same stretches of road. Suggesting that these are spots where the government feels they can generate some easy revenue.
If safety and saving lives were the government's main aim, then imposing variable speed limits and safety cameras in the vicinity of schools would seem much more logical. In one report into child fatalities, it was stated that a child hit by a car travelling at 20 mph had a 95% chance of survival, at 30 mph a 50% chance and 40 mph only 10% survived. When a car travelling at 40 mph hits a child, they will be thrown up to 30 metres. There would not seem to be a better reason for installing safety cameras and imposing a variable speed limit at certain times of the day in these areas. One reason for not doing so could be that it is not cost effective.
Parking restrictions is another area of which motorists complain bitterly; again motorists appear to be in complete agreement with parking restrictions that serve to improve traffic flow and avoid congestion. In many towns and cities however it is difficult to see any reason for the yellow lines, other than to make motorists park on meters or in Pay and Display zones. There are some towns that then keep the parking restrictions in place on a Sunday, catching out many motorists, who not unnaturally do not expect there to be restrictions on a Sunday
Over zealous traffic wardens are a source of a great deal of complaints amongst motorists. Of course a traffic warden must do his or her job but as long as you have traffic wardens who are rewarded based on the number of tickets that they issue, you will have tickets issued unfairly. Traffic wardens can be seen checking the position of parked vehicles and if they are even a fraction outside of the parking bay, issuing a ticket. The BBC reported in 2007 that a traffic warden in Enniskillen Northern Ireland issued 2,590 parking tickets in a little over 6 months. It is important to remember that if a traffic warden is issuing a ticket, for it to be valid; they must affix it to the vehicle. If you arrive at your vehicle and you advise the warden that you are going and they say "too late I have already started to write the ticket" you are quite within your rights just to drive off.
It has been claimed that the congestion charge has reduced unnecessary journeys into central London but who is to say they were unnecessary? Many motorists say that their journey was necessary but they are not in a financial position to pay the congestion charge on a regular basis.
Ken Livingston was planning to introduce a new charge of 25 for cars with high fuel consumption. Porsche Cars GB was mounting a challenge in the courts, they claimed, "It is an illegal use of power by the mayor". Porsche believed it to be "unfair and disproportionate" and filed an application for a judicial review in the High Court. However Ken Livingston lost his position to Boris Johnson who was elected the new Mayor of London, he made it clear that he will scrap the 25 charge.
Many ask why is it that we in Britain pay Road Fund Licence and such high levels of duty on fuel compared with many countries but still have a very poorly funded road system. In analysis carried out by The Institute of Fiscal Studies in 2005, they revealed that taxation represented 69.9% of the cost of unleaded fuel and 67.3% of the cost of diesel. Motorists additionally pay the government substantial sums in speeding and parking fines. Perhaps it's just as well that the rates for contract hire and leasing in the UK are some of the lowest in the world, at least going some way to compensate the unfortunate British motorist who seems to be taxed and fined at every turn.
Should you have any queries or questions with regard to Fleet Management, Licence checking, Contract Hire, Personal Contract Hire, Lease Purchase or vehicle Hire Purchase, please do not hesitate to contact us. Bowater Price plc 01494 536 536. www.bowaterprice.com.
About the Author:
Get extra information about BMW hire purchase and leasing go to www.bowaterprice.com
