by This frequent contact with our clients means we often hear first hand what makes our clients and their employees unhappy when it comes to driving in Britain. Apart from hearing their complaints we see the constantly increasing number of fines from safety cameras and parking violations. These fines come first to us as the contract hire company, because it is our name that shows in the registration document and we forward them to the client. If they remain unpaid we have to pay the fines and collect the money from the client.
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.
Not surprisingly top of the list of motorists complaints are speeding fines. It is not so much that motorists agree with speeding, most in fact do not; it is just that they feel the system is unfair. In particular it is the variable speed limit that comes in for the most criticism; where the speed limit can change up and down over a relatively short stretch of motorway, which apart from anything else causes a great deal of confusion.
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.
The Department of Transport is starting to use average speed detection cameras, which are more popular with motorists because they are fair; if a motorist forgets his speed for a moment, he can realise his mistake and has time to rectify it. This is a system that has been used in France for many years, as many British tourists have found when they have been fined for speeding between toll booths. In this case they do not need cameras; they just time you between toll booths.
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.
A major source of discontentment amongst motorists is roads which appear to have illogically low speed limits. These roads seem to be far more appropriate for a 40 or 50 mph speed limit; naturally a lot of motorists get fined for speeding on these roads, assuming incorrectly that the road has a 40mph speed limit. Not surprisingly mobile detection units set up by the police favour these roads, motorists feel this is for no other reason than that they are an easy target.
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.
Whilst most motorists agree that restricted parking is essential in towns and cities to maintain traffic flow, they object to what they believe are parking restrictions that appear to be in place for no reason other than to force motorists to park in local council car parks or on meters. Many motorists feel tricked when they park in a restricted area on a Sunday and find that the council has extended the parking restriction to Sundays and receive a fine.
Motorist’s discontentment over parking restrictions is not helped by over zealous and often unreasonable traffic wardens; it is not uncommon for motorists to return to their car to find they have a parking ticket because their wheels are a few inches outside the parking bay. According to the BBC an Enniskillen based traffic warden gave out 2,590 parking violations in just over six months. Not all motorists are aware that if you return to your vehicle and the traffic warden is still writing the ticket, you can just get in your car and drive off. The benefit is twofold, firstly you do not have to pay a fine that has not been affixed to your windscreen and secondly it drives the traffic warden mad.
The London Congestion Charge was designed to reduce congestion by cutting down the number of unnecessary journeys into London but has it worked? It has certainly reduced the number of journeys cars make into London, as to whether they were unnecessary is debateable; perhaps some motorists simply can’t afford to drive into central London anymore but that doesn’t mean that their journeys were unnecessary.
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.