Author: PA Media

Four out of five young people expect to be driving regularly by 2035, a new survey suggests.

Some 85% of respondents to a survey of 1,000 Britons aged 17–24 commissioned by the RAC Foundation said it is certain or likely they will be driving a car or van at least once a week then.

That is despite only 55% of this group currently doing so.

The most common reasons given for respondents believing they will start driving include an expectation their lifestyles will require it and a belief that driving will be more convenient than public transport, walking or cycling.

Among those questioned who have not taken a driving test, the cost of lessons was the most frequent reason given (33%), followed by the cost of buying, leasing or hiring a car (26%), lack of time (26%) and driving not being a priority (23%).

The survey indicated that 70% of young people feel positive about electric cars, but just 37% support the roll-out of fully autonomous vehicles.

Two out of five (40%) respondents who drive regularly said they have reduced the number of car journeys they make due to the environmental impact of driving.

The same proportion of those who have not already taken that step said they would be willing to do so over the next five years.

RAC Foundation director Steve Gooding said: “There is much speculation on whether the young people of today will turn out to be the drivers of tomorrow or whether they will learn to live without getting behind the wheel.

“The evidence here is that the vast majority see themselves as motorists within the next decade or so.

“Previous research we have done has shown the importance knowing how to drive can be to securing a job.

“Encouragingly, young people are well aware of the need to reduce or mitigate the negative impacts of driving and there is majority support for low-traffic neighbourhoods, investment in cycling infrastructure and the introduction of clean air zones.”

– The survey was conducted by Ipsos in November 2022.

Drivers are being warned it will be illegal to pick up their mobiles during the first test of the Government’s new emergency alert service.

The AA said motorists may prefer to switch off their electronic devices before Sunday’s test as laws banning the use of handheld phones will still apply.

For around 10 seconds from 3pm, millions of smartphones and tablets across the UK will emit a loud alarm and vibrate in a trial of a system that aims to warn the public if there is a danger to life nearby.

They will also display a message about what is happening.

Drivers caught holding a phone behind the wheel face six penalty points and a £200 fine.

AA campaigns manager Lorna Lee said the test is “very welcome” as the system “could be very useful in certain situations”.

She continued: “The test does bring certain risks though, which need to be managed.

“For drivers in particular, awareness of the test is vital to avoid any panic when it sounds.

“If you are driving when the alert sounds, you must not touch your phone to stop the alert as the normal driving laws still apply.

“Instead, wait for a safe place to pull over – not the hard shoulder nor emergency area – acknowledge the alert and continue your journey.

“Some drivers may prefer to switch their phone off in advance if they know they will be driving during the alert test.”

The system is modelled on similar schemes in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and Japan.

The UK’s alerts will initially be used to warn people about severe weather situations including floods and wildfires in their local area.

The Government said on Monday the system could later be used for other forms of emergencies such as terror attacks, nuclear threats and dangerous criminals on the loose.

The Government should aim to cut driving by 20% in the next seven years in order to curb emissions, a think tank has said.

In a report released on Thursday, the Green Alliance think tank said the Government should make driving more expensive and public transport cheaper, or risk seeing 300 billion more miles driven annually by 2050.

Changes would include introducing road pricing, extending a daily £1.50 congestion charge to more cities and increasing parking fees to make driving 5% more expensive.

At the same time, Green Alliance said revenues from higher driving charges should be invested in public transport and infrastructure for walking and cycling, including cutting rail fares by 5%, bus fares by 15% and making both buses and trains more frequent.

Green Alliance’s recommendations are intended to provide a “balanced” set of policies that discourage driving, particularly in urban areas, while making it easier to use alternative modes of transport.

Rosie Allen, a policy adviser at Green Alliance, said: “People would travel less by car if suitable alternatives were available. Unfortunately, we don’t currently have the range of measures required to encourage and enable more people to get out of their cars and onto a bike, bus or train.

“The Government is emphasising that climate change will be beaten through ‘tangible’ measures, but there is currently a gap in ambition to reduce transport emissions. We’re showing here that a shift to greener travel is completely attainable. Ministers just need to choose a sensible route.”

The report added that although the Government has pledged to make public transport and active travel “the natural first choice for journeys”, there has been “little in the way of policy or a strategy to achieve this” and the Government has cut back planned spending on active travel.

Research by the think tank found that the UK needed to reduce driving by 20-27% by 2030 to remain on course to achieve net zero carbon emissions by the middle of the century.

The Green Alliance added that reducing car use would also save the NHS £2.5 billion per year, give better travel access to the 46% of low income households who are carless, and reduce air pollution.

Projections by the Department for Transport suggest 18.5% more miles being driven by 2050, although wider use of electric vehicles is still expected to see emissions fall.

Transport Secretary Mark Harper has insisted the “actual safety performance” of smart motorways is “very good” despite the Government’s decision not to build any more.

The Cabinet minister told MPs that the safety of the roads is “not reflected in public confidence” and stressed the importance of “recognising where the public is”.

On Sunday, the Government announced the cancellation of planned projects to build all-lane running (ALR) smart motorways, which use the hard shoulder as a live traffic lane.

But it also refused to reinstate the hard shoulder on existing smart motorways, citing the resulting disruption and cost.

A £900 million programme of measures to improve safety on these roads will continue.

Giving evidence to the Transport Select Committee on Wednesday, Mr Harper said: “All of the types of smart motorways remain the safest roads on the strategic road network.

“They are safer than conventional motorways and they are safer, by some margin, than A roads.

“But it is also the case that that is not reflected in public confidence.

“There is a significant number of members of the public who are not confident about using smart motorways, we’ve seen that from a consistent level of polling.”

He added: “The conclusion we’ve reached is a balanced one which reflects the actual safety performance of smart motorways, which is very good, but does reflect the fact that the public don’t have the confidence in them that that data suggests they should have.

“I think in a democratic country where you have to take people with you, I think recognising where the public is, is important.”

Some 69% of respondents to a poll commissioned by the RAC on Monday said they believe the emergency lane should be restored on ALR smart motorways.

Smart motorways involve various methods to manage the flow of traffic, such as converting the hard shoulder into a live running lane, and variable speed limits.

ALR smart motorways boost capacity at a lower cost than widening roads.

There have been long-standing safety fears following fatal incidents in which vehicles stopped in live lanes were hit from behind.

Nearly seven in 10 drivers want the hard shoulder reinstated on smart motorways despite Government objections over disruption and costs, new research suggests.

Some 69% of respondents to a poll commissioned by the RAC said they believe the emergency lane should be restored on all-lane running (ALR) versions of smart motorways.

The survey was carried out hours after Downing Street insisted on Monday that such a move would be “too disruptive” and cost a “significant” amount of money.

It was announced on Sunday that the building of new smart motorways has been cancelled amid safety fears.

RAC road safety spokesman Simon Williams said: “We’re pleased the Government reached the same conclusion that many drivers already have by cancelling future smart motorway schemes which would have seen dozens more miles of hard shoulder disappearing forever.

“But, as things stand, by the end of this year there will still be 250 miles of motorway in England without hard shoulders.

“Installing additional refuge areas and radar technology to help spot stricken vehicles is welcome and necessary, but for most drivers this doesn’t go far enough.

“Many felt they were dangerous from the outset and now it’s clear the Government has totally lost faith in these types of road as well.

“Today, it remains the case that anyone unlucky enough to break down who can’t get to an emergency refuge area remains incredibly vulnerable where the hard shoulder has been taken out.

“We continue to believe that reinstating the hard shoulder on all stretches of road where they’ve been converted into a permanent fourth lane is the right thing to do.”

Labour’s shadow transport secretary, Louise Haigh, said: “Labour have long demanded action on smart motorways and it’s a tragedy that so many lives have been lost waiting for ministers to act.

“We know smart motorways, coupled with inadequate safety systems, are not fit for purpose and are putting lives at risk.

“That’s why Conservative ministers should reinstate the hard shoulder on existing smart motorways and carry out remedial and safety work while a comprehensive review of the inadequate safety systems and evidence takes place.”

Smart motorways involve various methods to manage the flow of traffic, such as converting the hard shoulder into a live running lane, and variable speed limits.

ALR smart motorways boost capacity at a lower cost than widening roads.

There have been long-standing safety fears following fatal incidents in which vehicles stopped in live lanes were hit from behind, but National Highways insists the roads are safer than conventional motorways.

– The RAC commissioned research company Find Out Now to carry out the survey of 1,843 UK drivers on Monday.

Reinstating hard shoulders on existing smart motorways would be “too disruptive” and cost a “significant” amount, Downing Street has said.

The Government is under pressure to bring back emergency lanes on the controversial roads.

It follows an announcement on Sunday that the building of new smart motorways has been cancelled amid safety fears.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman insisted the existing road network is safe but acknowledged: “People do have concerns about how smart motorways have operated and a significant proportion have said they don’t feel confident on these roads.”

He said £900 million will be spent adding further safety features to smart motorways already in use.

“We think that’s the right approach rather than adding in hard shoulders, which would be extremely disruptive to the public trying to go about their day, both for road users for local communities, and that obviously would come at a significant cost to the taxpayer,” he said.

Campaigner Claire Mercer, whose husband Jason was killed on a smart motorway in South Yorkshire, is among those pushing for a return of the hard shoulder.

After Sunday’s announcement, she said: “It’s the existing ones that are killing us. And I’m not settling for more emergency refuge areas.

“So it’s half the battle, but we’ve still got half the battle to go.”

All-lane running smart motorways permanently use the hard shoulder for live traffic, while dynamic schemes only open the lane to traffic during busy periods.

The Department for Transport (DfT) announced on Monday that seven of the 14 smart motorway projects axed involve dynamic schemes due to be converted to all-lane running.

It means the roads will continue to operate without a hard shoulder at certain times.

Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “The focus will now shift to those motorways that continue to use the hard shoulder as an occasional live lane.

“Drivers will understandably ask if the plan now is to permanently restore the hard shoulder on these stretches of road.

“Ultimately, the rules, regulations and layouts of roads should be easy to understand whether people are driving along them at 70mph or 7mph.”

Jim O’Sullivan, then-chief executive of Highways England – now known as National Highways – told the Commons’ Transport Select Committee in October 2019 that dynamic smart motorways are “too complicated for people to use”.

In evidence to the same committee, transport minister Baroness Vere said the DfT believes it is “counter-intuitive for drivers to drive over a solid white line”, so dynamic smart motorways are “a less viable route to take forward because it causes confusion”.

Norman Baker, director of external affairs at lobby group Campaign for Better Transport and former Lib Dem transport minister, said: “We welcome the Government’s decision to cancel all new smart motorways but think Rishi Sunak must now go further and scrap all existing smart motorways as well.

“Sacrificing the hard shoulder for all-lane running has been shown to be simply dangerous.”

Most logistics companies cannot consider decarbonising their lorries because of a lack of infrastructure, a body representing manufacturers claimed.

New analysis by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) shows there is not a single dedicated electric charging or hydrogen refuelling site for HGVs on Britain’s major roads.

It stated: “This lack of infrastructure makes it impossible for the vast majority of operators to contemplate investments to decarbonise their fleets, putting critical CO2 emission savings of up to 21.1 million tonnes a year at risk.”

The potential for vehicles to run out of electricity or hydrogen before completing a journey is a “key concern” for the logistics sector, the SMMT said.

From 2035, all new lorries weighing under 26 tonnes sold in the UK must be zero emission.

The SMMT warned this is the same timescale for cars and vans despite the electric lorry market being “two decades behind that of passenger cars”.

It is calling on the Government to devise a strategy within the next 12 months that “focuses on the specific requirements of HGVs to enable operators to plan and invest” in switching from diesel.

This should include better purchase incentives for switching to greener vehicles, and a plan to support and co-ordinate the installation of public and depot-based charging and refuelling “in the right locations across all regions”, according to the body.

SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said: “With just over a decade until the UK begins to phase out new diesel trucks, we cannot afford to delay a strategy that will deliver the world’s first decarbonised HGV sector.

“Manufacturers are investing billions in electric and hydrogen vehicles that will deliver massive CO2 savings, and it is vital that operators making long-term decisions today have full confidence in these technologies, that they will be commercially viable and allow them to keep costs down for consumers.

“A successful transition requires a long-term plan to drive the rollout of a dedicated UK-wide HGV charging and fuelling network, combined with world-leading incentives to encourage uptake and attract model allocation – a plan that will keep a greener Britain on the move and globally competitive.”

A DfT spokesperson said: “We are committed to decarbonising our freight sector while supporting jobs and economic growth.

“We are working closely with industry to support the rollout of zero emission HGVs on our roads, and we will be investing in projects to support that following our successful £20 million pilot.”

Wales’s capital is considering becoming the latest place to charge motorists to drive into the city centre.

Cardiff City Council said the introduction of charges would be used to fund improvements to bus services with £1 fares, a new tram network and enhanced regional links.

Council leaders will consider a report on April 27 which aims to tackle air pollution, battle climate change and combat congestion.

They said road transport was responsible for 40% of carbon emissions in Cardiff, which was the joint highest measured among the UK’s 11 core cities.

More than 9,000 Cardiff residents are registered with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease while 7% of adults and 6% of children aged 10 to 14 have been diagnosed with asthma.

Council leader Huw Thomas said: “We know our residents want action on climate change and they want the air their children and their loved ones breathe to be cleaner.

“We know residents want to see electric buses and taxis serve the city, to have new train/tram links and stations, to drive on better maintained roads, with safe cycling and walking routes.

“We know they see the queues of traffic and know the damage this is causing to their health and the environment, whilst also strangling the city’s economy.

“It’s clear that action is needed if we are going to change the dial on this.”

Councillor Thomas said improvements to public transport would benefit everyone in the city.

“The people and communities who rely on public transport are often the worst served by our bus and train services,” he said.

“They are also breathing the dirtiest air and suffering the worst rates of childhood asthma and other illnesses. Improving our transport system is essential if we are to connect some of our most disadvantaged communities with the opportunities that are available in the city.

“I understand that there will be those who say that, ‘This is just another tax when the country is facing a cost-of-living crisis’.

“So let me address that head on. The current levels of traffic in Cardiff are costing the average resident hundreds upon hundreds of pounds each year and holding our economy back.

“That’s on top of the environmental and health damage caused by congestion.

“So, it’s imperative that we create a transport system where everyone – in particular our poorest and most disadvantaged communities – can be better connected with the jobs and opportunities we know are available in the city.

“We also know that, in Cardiff, the lowest levels of car ownership are amongst young people, those who are disabled, those living in the southern arc and those from a minority ethnic background.

“As a result, they are entirely reliant on public transport.

“So, the people that are being hit the hardest by the cost-of-living crisis now will be the ones that benefit the most if a scheme is introduced in four of five years’ time, when hopefully we will all face a better economic climate.”

The council said if the report was accepted a range of road payment schemes would be considered including, road user payments, congestion zones, clean air zones and workplace parking charges.

They would also consult the public on what the levy would be, who would be exempt and who would qualify for discounts.

Councillor Thomas added: “There are so many potential benefits at play here. Reducing carbon emissions will naturally help us tackle air pollution and climate change, but that’s not all.

“We also believe that a payment could help reduce congestion.

“The cost of congestion to the economy in Cardiff was estimated by Inrix to be £109 million in 2019.

“If we can reduce congestion, we can improve everyone’s ability to get where they need to be in the city more quickly.

“This can open up job opportunities for people and labour markets for employers, delivering a positive economic impact across the city.”

The building of new smart motorways is being cancelled as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak acknowledged concerns about safety and cost.

Fourteen planned smart motorways – including 11 that are already paused and three earmarked for construction – will be removed from Government road building plans, given financial pressures and in recognition of the lack of public trust.

Campaigners welcomed the move, but demanded the Government now return the hard shoulder on existing conversions.

The Department for Transport said the construction of these schemes would have cost more than £1 billion.

But the department added that the construction of two stretches of smart motorway at junctions six to eight of the M56 and 21a to 26 of the M6 will continue as they are already more than three quarters complete.

Existing stretches will remain but be subjected to a safety refit so there are 150 more emergency stopping places across the network.

Around 10% of England’s motorway network is made up of smart motorways.

They involve various methods to manage the flow of traffic, such as converting the hard shoulder into a live running lane and variable speed limits.

But there have been long-standing safety fears following fatal incidents in which vehicles stopped in live lanes without a hard shoulder were hit from behind.

In January 2022, the Government paused the expansion of motorways where the hard shoulder is used as a permanent live traffic lane.

This was to enable five years of data to be collected to assess whether they are safe for drivers.

In his Tory leadership campaign last summer, Mr Sunak vowed to ban them.

“All drivers deserve to have confidence in the roads they use to get around the country,” the Prime Minister said.

“That’s why last year I pledged to stop the building of all new smart motorways, and today I’m making good on that promise.

“Many people across the country rely on driving to get to work, to take their children to school and go about their daily lives, and I want them to be able to do so with full confidence that the roads they drive on are safe.”

Pressure had been mounting on the Government to scrap the routes, which have been criticised by MPs and road safety campaigners, including the RAC and AA.

Campaigner Claire Mercer, whose husband was killed on a smart motorway in South Yorkshire, welcomed the Government’s move but pledged to continue pushing for the hard shoulder to return on every road.

She told the PA news agency: “It’s great, it’s very good news.

“I’m particularly happy that it’s been confirmed that the routes that are in planning, in progress, have also been cancelled. I didn’t think they’d do that.

“So it’s good news, but obviously it’s the existing ones that are killing us. And I’m not settling for more emergency refuge areas.

“So it’s half the battle, but we’ve still got half the battle to go.”

Jason Mercer and another man, Alexandru Murgeanu, died in 2019 when they were hit by a lorry on the M1 near Sheffield after they stopped on the inside lane of the smart motorway section following a minor collision.

Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Mr Mercer’s Rotherham constituency, said: “I’m relieved the Government has finally listened to motorists and common sense, but this announcement is long overdue and I need to see the detail before celebrating.

“Will the Government be returning the hard shoulder on existing conversions? Will the schemes currently in construction be restored? Why now when two parliamentary select committee inquiries, their own review and countless campaigns by family members of those who died on these death traps wasn’t enough to persuade them.”

AA president Edmund King said: “We have had enough coroners passing down their deadly and heart-breaking judgments where the lack of a hard shoulder has contributed to deaths.

“At last the Government has listened and we are delighted to see the rollout of ‘smart’ motorways scrapped…

“We would also like to see the hard shoulder reinstated on existing stretches in due course.”

RAC road safety spokesman Simon Williams said: “Our research shows all lane running smart motorways are deeply unpopular with drivers so we’re pleased the Government has finally arrived at the same conclusion.

“It’s now vitally important that plans are made for making the hundreds of existing miles of these types of motorway as safe as possible.”

Transport Secretary Mark Harper said: “We want the public to know that this Government is listening to their concerns.

“Today’s announcement means no new smart motorways will be built, recognising the lack of public confidence felt by drivers and the cost pressures due to inflation.”

Five Conservative-led councils have been granted permission to challenge Sadiq Khan’s intention to expand London’s ultra low emission zone (Ulez).

The outer-London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon along with Surrey County Council launched legal action in February over the proposed extension of Ulez beyond the North and South Circular roads.

A judge at the High Court has now decided their bid for a judicial review can go ahead, saying parts of the local authorities’ challenge were “arguable”.

Sir Ross Cranston, in a written decision issued on Wednesday, said a one day hearing should be held in early July.

If it goes ahead, Ulez will see drivers in outer London pay a £12.50 daily fee from August 29 if their vehicles do not meet the required emissions standards.

The new borders will reach Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey.

Councils involved in the legal challenge believe “relevant statutory requirements” were not complied with, expected compliance rates in outer London were not considered and the proposed scrappage scheme was not consulted on.

They also claimed the overall consultation process was not properly conducted and there was a failure to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the plan.

The High Court has allowed the case to proceed on two grounds – the legal basis for the scheme and scrappage.

A spokesperson for the mayor said: “The mayor is pleased to see the court has refused permission for the majority of the grounds.

“We will continue to robustly defend his life-saving decision to expand the Ulez and continue with preparations without delay.

“It is a shame that some local authorities have chosen to attempt this costly and misguided legal challenge instead of focusing on the health of those they represent.

“Around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely every year due to air pollution.

“This is a health emergency and the mayor is not prepared to stand by and do nothing while Londoners are growing up with stunted lungs and are more at risk of heart disease, cancer and dementia due to our toxic air.”

Baroness O’Neill of Bexley, leader of Bexley Council, said on Wednesday that the Ulez expansion proposal was “never about air quality and we believe it would have disastrous consequences for many of our residents and businesses, as well as others who regularly travel into the borough”.

“We hope that today’s decision moves us a step closer to stopping the Mayor’s money-making scheme,” she added.

Bromley Council’s leader, Colin Smith, said there was “still time for the Mayor to pull back and take a more considered approach” to benefit those “threatened by the horrendous daily cost of his proposed tax”.

Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council, welcomed the news of the legal challenge proceeding, while Ian Edwards, leader of Hillingdon Council, said he was confident that the court would “rightfully quash these disastrous plans”.

Paul Osborn, leader of Harrow Council, said: “We have always had concerns about the impact Ulez will have on our residents and businesses who are already struggling with the rising costs of living – it’s simply unfair.”

Nick Rogers AM, City Hall Conservatives transport spokesperson, said: “The High Court has now ruled there is sufficient evidence that Sadiq Khan’s Ulez decision may have been unlawful.

“The mayor clearly does not have the legal grounds to proceed with his Ulez tax plans, which take money from charities, small businesses and low-income Londoners who cannot afford a new car.

“Sadiq Khan should do the right thing, immediately stop work on his Ulez expansion and explain his actions to the court.”