Cars Lasting Longer and 40 Limit on A20

Posted on by
1

A couple of interesting news items worth covering:

Cars are aging.

Cars are lasting longer according to an article published by the Brown Car Guy (a.k.a. Shahzad Sheikh). Apparently the age of the UK car fleet is rising. The average age of cars on UK roads is now nearly 10 years which the writer concludes is a good thing. See https://browncarguy.com/2025/08/06/uk-drivers-are-keeping-their-cars-for-10-years-and-thats-a-good-thing/ . It’s an article worth reading.

I think I agree particularly as new electric vehicles cost so much. Even petrol/diesel cars last longer – I typically used to keep vehicles for 5 years but now more like 8 and with the limited mileage I do now and current health problems my current vehicle may be the last one I ever purchase.

Keeping a vehicle for 8 years, whether purchased new of second-hand, minimises the immediate loss from depreciation in the first year or two. So financially it makes sense and is better for the environment.

Legal Challenge to A20 Speeding Fines.

There have been a lot of complaints, and media coverage, about the abrupt change from a 70mph speed limit to 40mph on the A20 near Swanley. Thousands of people have been issued with fines as a result.

The limit was changed because of flooding on the A20 and was probably justified as a road safety measure following some serious accidents but the new limit was put in place without notice and poorly signed. However Chislehurst resident John Dunlop is challenging his prosecution and has defended it in Bromley Magistrates Court – a further hearing will take place in Novermber.

Comment: This was certainly an unjust prosecution that impacted many people. I advise anyone caught by this scam to persist with defending against it.

See Telegraph article here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/08/tfl-speeding-driver-fights-court-case-lbc-host-iain-dale/

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

Supreme Court Decision on Car Finance Welcomed

Posted on by
1

The Supreme Court (the Highest UK Court) has issued a decision on some of the claims where it is alleged that car finance was mis-sold. The claims were mainly based on the fact that those who purchased cars from dealers were not advised of the amount of commission they were paying to arrange it. The car dealers were simply taking the opportunity to sell an additional service to the car purchaser (the buyer did not have to take it as they could have arranged finance and insurance elsewhere).

The claims were potentially going to amount to billions of pounds and would have been very damaging to major insurance companies. I welcome the Supreme Court decision and I actually said this in a previous blog post: “It is surely daft that customers who bought insurance with their eyes wide open should be able to claim anything. They presumably were happy with the costs and level of cover, so the fact there were undisclosed commissions is irrelevant”.

One commentator on that blog post suggested that the car dealer was acting as an agent for the car owner so had a fiduciary duty to advise the owner of the terms of the deal and the commission being paid. But the Supreme Court said no fiduciary duty was owed which hopefully kills off most of the dubious legal claims.

Unfortunately the Court decision is not quite as clear cut as it might appear and there might still be room for some claimants to pursue their cases. Claims management companies were actively pursuing the recruitment of millions of claimants and some appear to be still doing so.

It is surely time for the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to kill off any suggestions of a “redress scheme” in this case and to clarify the legal position going forward – by new legislation if necessary.

In general the Courts should not be inventing new legal principles or protecting the ignorant against their own mistakes retrospectively.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Toyota Review and ICE Sales

Posted on by
Reply

There was an interesting article reviewing car sales in last week’s Investors Chronicle (4-10 July under the headline Toyota: pragmatic or careless?).

Toyota was still the best-selling car brand in 2024, ahead of Volkswagen, Ford and Hyundai. Market share of petrol-powered cars in Europe was about 47% in 2024 and has not been declining rapidly despite government incentives to purchase electric vehicles.

Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) reached a record 19.6% of new car registrations in 2024, according to We Buy Any Car but these are mainly fleet sales with private owners still favouring ICE (petrol/diesel or hybrid) vehicles.

The public are not changing their views on which vehicles are best very quickly although the numbers are very different in different countries mainly because of different tax incentives in some.

Toyota have been winning market share because they have not been dogmatic about what type of vehicles they expect purchasers to buy. With a strong focus on hybrid offerings, compare that with Jaguar who have focussed on expensive electric vehicles and where sales have almost disappeared.

Betting on any one technology is surely a mistake – as Tesla and Jaguar have done. The Chinese makers such as BYD (backed by Warren Buffett) are emulating Toyota in approach.

Whichever type of vehicle best suits the buyers depends on home facilities such as off-road parking and the cost of fuel in the local market.

It may be cheaper to run a second-hand ICE vehicle than buy a new electric one.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Lambeth Shows What’s Wrong with Local Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

A petition on Change.org spells out how London Boroughs such as Lambeth can undermine local democracy by becoming an increasingly authoritarian regime – see https://chng.it/6TQgf76kW5 . It spells out how some Labour dominated councils can destroy democracy. It’s definitely worth signing the petition.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Oxford Congestion Charge

Posted on by
1

Oxford is proposing to introduce a “temporary congestion charge”. If you believe that will only be temporary then you are surely gullible. It would only apply to cars and the charge would be £5 per day. To quote from the proposal: “The scheme is designed to improve bus services and make it easier for those with permits, including community health and care workers, carers, blue badge holders and traders, to travel by car into and around the city”.

How will it make it easier for those people to travel into the City or improve bus services? It would only help if it reduces traffic congestion but such schemes very rarely do so. The unsatisfied demand for road space is so high that the road space quickly fills up.

There is of course no proper cost/benefit analysis in the report and it is just another way to raise taxation on motorists.

You can respond to a public consultation on the scheme here: https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/congestion-charge . Please do so.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Mayor to Raise London Congestion Charge

Posted on by
2

TfL are proposing to raise the London Congestion Charge (a.k.a. tax) to £18 per day from £15 (or £21 if you pay late). There is a public consultation which you can access from this page: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/congestion-charge-proposals but don’t expect Mayor Sadiq Khan to pay much attention to the responses.

He needs the extra money raised to fill his budget incompetence. The Congestion Charging scheme was introduced in February 2003 with an initial fee of £5. TfL claim that “Since its introduction the primary objective of the scheme has been to manage traffic and congestion in central London by imposing a charge during the busiest times of day”. This is bullshit of course. It’s always been about raising tax revenue and has not reduced traffic congestion. Like all taxes, once introduced it gradually gets increased over the years without any proper analysis of the benefits or costs.

Changes to electric vehicle and resident’s discounts are also proposed.

Irrespective of the low chance of attention being paid to any responses, please respond to the public consultation. Tell them that there should be a proper cost/benefit justification provided.

FFDF analysis of the London Congestion Charge: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/congestion

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Challenging LTNs

Posted on by
Reply

It’s worth challenging Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) if you object to them. They generally cause more traffic congestion and enormous inconvenience to residents. Lambeth Council recently lost a legal challenge to an LTN in West Dulwich, primarily because the council ignored well argued responses to a public consultation.

There are rules about public consultations but some councils think they can ignore them and push through their desired changes regardless of public opinion or the likely impact. Lambeth is one of the worst councils for ignoring the residents because they think they know best. But they will now have to reconsider their proposals.

For more details see this BBC report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4178plvdo .

There is also a Facebook group called the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) if you wish to support them.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

10 Mph Speed Limits and Lack of Motorway Construction

Posted on by
Reply

If you thought blanket 20 mph speed limits (now prevalent in Wales and London) were silly then you’ll be astonished to hear that the charity Road Safety Foundation are calling for 10 mph speed limits in urban areas where pedestrians and cyclists are commonly seen. This is part of their Vision Zero policy to cut road deaths to zero.

Vision Zero was adopted as a policy in London in 2018 but has been an abysmal failure in reducing road casualties – see this previous blog post for an analysis: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/20/vision-zero-failing-but-the-mayor-thinks-otherwise/

Ten mph is surely even dafter and impossible to comply with – just try driving at 10 mph and wait for the reaction from drivers behind you!

The Spectator have published a good article on this subject which you can read here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-blanket-city-10mph-speed-limit-is-preposterous/ . They rightly call it preposterous. Such a policy is only being pushed by those cyclists and pedestrians who would like to get rid of all cars and vans from our streets which would cause major problems for the elderly and disabled who rely on them. It would also slow down our roads to walking pace. Car users need to fight such policies whenever and wherever they are proposed.

No Motorway Building

The FT have published an article that shows how pathetic the UK has been in building more road capacity, particularly motorways in the last few years. This is some of what they said:

“Britain has added just 65 miles of new motorway in the past decade, with a large proportion of this figure the result of a statistical quirk rather than actual construction, according to data from the Department for Transport. Some other European countries have built thousands of miles of new highways during the same period. Only three new stretches of motorway were opened in that period, on the A1(M) to Newcastle, the M8 near Glasgow and the M90/Queensferry Crossing”.

Why is the UK so bad at building new roads? Because of lack of forward planning, national government policies that inhibit spending money on roads while railways get largesse that cannot be justified on any rational cost/benefit analysis, and because of opposition from nimbys. Lack of sound political leadership is the essence of the problem.

But the UK has suffered from the same leadership failure over excessive immigration. Labour, Conservative and LibDems have been the problem in failing to act wisely and decisively. Let us hope the Reform Party will get a chance to do things differently.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

How Planning and Environmental Regulations Thwart Key Transport Schemes

Posted on by
Reply

The Daily Telegraph ran an interesting article this week on how Chris Todd uses “lawfare” to challenge road building schemes. His activities have cost several hundreds of millions of pounds and caused numerous delays while generally being unable to ultimately thwart most developments.

How can he afford such challenges? Mainly because the UK is a party to the Aarhus Convention which limits the costs that can be incurred on challenges based on environmental issues. This limits an individual’s legal costs to £5,000 while the Government can run up legal costs of many times that amount in defending trivial challenges.

The Telegraph article is a good summary of examples where needless delays and costs have been incurred. See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/09/chris-todd-britains-costliest-nimby/

The regulations need reform and we need to withdraw from the Aarhus Convention to stop pointless and expensive legal challenges.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Illegal Signage on ULEZ/LEZ Schemes?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent challenge to the ULEZ/LEZ schemes based on the fact that the signage was not compliant with Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 has been upheld. Those are the regulations that specify the required road signage.

See https://www.ulezdisputes.co.uk/ for more information. These might be worth pursuing if you have paid fines for not paying the “charges” demanded by TfL in London.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.