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.
Contract Hire companies supply company vehicles, both cars and commercial, from a range of manufacturers. This means that a contract hire company tends to work in much closer contact with its clients than perhaps a main dealership, which is only supplying vehicles from one manufacturer.
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.
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.
Safety cameras are installed on many duel carriageways as well as motorways, in an attempt to reduce accidents, or raise revenue, depending on how you view it. The view of most independent experts appear to be that safety cameras have been successful, but to nothing like the degree that the government claims. Accidents do also occur at safety camera sites, when motorists brake suddenly, on seeing a safety camera. The authorities would probably say that motorists shouldn't brake when they see safety cameras and that they should instead drive within the speed limit, furthermore that the motorist that drives into the back of another vehicle shouldn't drive so close. All perfectly correct but in the real world people do brake when they see safety cameras and it does cause accidents.
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.
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.
The government's argument is that saving lives and avoiding injury is their primary concern, that being the case there would appear to be far more appropriate sites for applying variable speed limits and setting up safety cameras. If saving lives is the main objective then surely measures that could save children's lives should be a priority. We know that a child's chance of survival when hit by a car, go from 95% when the car is travelling at 20 mph to 10% at 40 mph, so surely the most valuable locations for safety cameras would appear to be in the general vicinity of schools. Bearing in mind the survival rates of children hit by speeding cars, why not have a variable speed limit in these areas, reducing the limit to 20 mph, when children are arriving and leaving school. Motorists would almost without exception, observe these limits. Why then is this not considered by the government? Could it be because motorists would overwhelming comply with the speed restrictions and it wouldn't raise sufficient revenue?
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
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.
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.
