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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
About the Author:
Get extra information about BMW hire purchase and leasing go to www.bowaterprice.com
No comments:
Post a Comment