By The vehicles that we have out on contract hire remain registered to us, so we see the pattern of fixed penalty fines received by our clients who have vehicles out on personal contract hire or contract hire, because in the first instance a fixed penalty notice comes to us. The number of motorists fined on these roads where the speed limit seems to make no sense is extraordinary. Motorists believe that if safety is their primary concern then there are many places that they could set up a mobile detection unit that would be more effective in saving lives. It is easy to sympathise with this view, after all how many lives are going to be lost when a motorist does 40 mph on a dual carriageway?
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.
Due to this very frequent contact we have with our contract hire clients, sometimes on a daily basis, we tend to hear the complaints they have about motoring in the UK. We also see the results of many of their complaints; contract hire and leasing companies as the registered keeper of the vehicles on contract hire, see the never ending flow of parking and speeding fines.
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.
It is claimed that the variable speed limit is set at a level to achieve improved traffic flow. However if improved traffic flow is the priority then why not do as the government in the Netherlands have done and ban overtaking by heavy goods vehicles. This makes a significant difference to traffic flow, because it increases road capacity. This restriction now applies on large sections of motorway in the Netherlands. Those who drive regularly on motorways will know that an overtaking heavy goods vehicle, that seem to be able to get level with but not past the HGV it is overtaking, slow traffic considerably.
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.
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.
Whilst an individual motorist who gets fined for speeding on one of these stretches of road, would have no idea how many other motorists are caught, we as a contract hire company do, because all our clients fixed penalty fines are sent to us the registered keeper. The numbers of fines coming through from these areas, which are clearly seen as rich pickings by the police, is quite astonishing. It makes it difficult believe that these measures have much to do with road safety. It is also worth bearing in mind when motoring abroad, it is planned that we will be pursued for speeding fines incurred in other European countries. The intention is that, before too long, it will also apply to parking tickets incurred abroad.
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.
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.
