Motoring of the future - Transport Contents

3  Advances in technology

15. In this chapter we briefly examine emerging technologies and the implications for Government policy.


16. In 1997, the Swedish Parliament set the target of eliminating fatalities and injuries on Swedish roads. In 2013, 264 people died in road crashes in Sweden, a record low. With three of every 100,000 Swedes dying on the roads each year, compared with 5.5 per 100,000 people across the European Union, 3.7 in the UK, 11.4 in the USA and 40 in the Dominican Republic, which has the world's most dangerous roads, Sweden's roads are the world's safest. The Swedes believe that new motoring technology will enable them to achieve their zero fatalities target.[19]

17. Professor Eric Sampson, Newcastle University, told us that "if you want literally zero fatalities, you would have to mandate the fitment of something. I do not know exactly what it is, but you would have to be certain that every vehicle on the road had one."[20] Darren Capes, Transport Systems Manager, City of York Council told us:

    The move from passive to active safety measures, which we are starting to see now with the move to technologies such as lane guidance and active cruise control—technologies that take the decision away from the driver—will make driving safer for car drivers, but that technology is equally applicable to the relationship between motorised vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists. In the same way as technology can be used to stop cars driving into each other, as part of radar enhancements to cruise control, it can also be used to find cyclists in blind spots and pick out moving pedestrians within a certain area at the front of a vehicle. There are real opportunities with those types of technology to make vehicles more aware of their surroundings and more aware of vulnerable road users within their vicinity.[21]

18. The Minister confirmed that road safety is of paramount importance to the Government. She explained that the Government preferred to "nudge people rather than mandate", but said that it would intervene if there were market failure relating to certain types of technology or safety issues.[22] She added that where the evidence and cost-benefits were clear, the Government would mandate the introduction of safety requirements.[23] She concluded by stating that the Government did not currently see a need to set a zero death target.[24]

19. Andrew Miller, Chief Technical Officer, Thatcham Research, told us that automation raised the possibility of making vehicles aware of their surroundings and of vulnerable road users in their vicinity. He drew a distinction between technologies which provided warning information to drivers and those which overrode drivers when they were reacting too slowly or making a dangerous manoeuvre. In his view, technologies that could override drivers would need to be introduced on a Europe-wide basis, because they would entail such significant changes to vehicle technology.[25]

20. Adding intelligent systems to vehicles or roadside infrastructure could dramatically improve road safety. It has been estimated that human error accounts for more than 90% of road accidents. While switching from human to automated systems will reduce the impact of human errors, human decisions will clearly continue to be required in the design of new systems. For example, Google's self-driving cars are designed intentionally to exceed the speed limit by up to 10 mph. Google has explained that this was introduced as a "safety feature", because it could be dangerous to drive slowly on a fast road when everyone else is breaking the speed limit.[26]

21. A number of intelligent safety systems are already available. Thatcham Research told us that technologies such as Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and autonomous steering interventions have the potential to deliver meaningful crash reductions.[27] It estimated that the UK would gain significant safety benefits if AEB systems were implemented throughout the UK vehicle fleet. It recommended that the Government should intervene to make that happen. It published evidence suggesting that introducing a fiscal incentive to increase the uptake of AEB would save 12,830 casualties and 120 lives between 2015 and 2025.[28] It proposed a legislative requirement to fit AEB systems to new cars, a regulatory programme to implement emerging technologies beyond AEB and a vehicle scrappage or tax incentive scheme to promote automated systems which improve safety.[29]

22. Many high-end vehicles are already fitted with advanced driver assistance systems such as autonomous cruise control, lane departure warning, lane keeping assistance, automatic emergency braking and emergency steering assistance. Future developments include autonomous systems, where the vehicle takes over control from the driver to prevent a collision. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) is a system which uses a digital road map enhanced with speed limit information to provide drivers with warnings when they exceed the speed limit, or even to limit the vehicle to the speed limit.

23. Vehicle-to-vehicle communications systems could reduce intersection collisions but would be effective only if the majority of cars were fitted with the technology. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has announced its intention to require vehicle-to-vehicle capability on all new cars, but even by mandating the introduction of vehicle-to-vehicle systems, it has been estimated that full deployment will take some 15 years.[30] Professor Carsten pointed out that the European Commission has acknowledged that with co-operative systems, "the real bottleneck seems to be in deployment". Professor Carsten acknowledged that it was "reasonable to be sceptical about the case for moving ahead now with expensive co-operative technologies that are of unproven benefit" but added that "such systems should not be rejected wholesale". He stated that "there has been no attempt to look systematically at how co-operative systems could be exploited to provide better management of the road network and no strategy has been put in place to deploy and exploit these systems."[31]

24. Policy makers will need to be alert to the possibility of unintended consequences, such as changes in behaviour that lead to drivers becoming too dependent on technology and not being alert enough to take control of a vehicle when they need to. Research can help policy makers understand such effects and how best to guard against them.

25. We heard that networked transport systems may be subject to cyber-attack.[32] That does not mean that such systems are not viable, but manufacturers and government must work together to produce appropriate cyber-security strategies to prepare for that possibility.

26. It is clear from the evidence that the DfT needs to conduct further research on the technical and behavioural aspects of safety systems in vehicles. The initiative to eliminate fatalities and injuries on Sweden's roads demonstrates how government can link technological development to increase safety by setting targets. We recognise that this approach could deliver benefits in vehicle safety, vehicle-to-vehicle communications and vehicle-to-infrastructure networks. The DfT should consider what impact setting targets to reduce serious injuries and fatalities might have on road safety in the UK.

Autonomous and connected vehicles

27. We asked witnesses to anticipate what mass market vehicles will look like in the future. Chris Reeves, Commercial Manager, Intelligent Mobility and Future Transport Technologies, Motor Industry Research Association, said road safety and traffic flows would both improve if vehicles had an increased level of intelligence and connectivity that allowed them to operate co-operatively.[33] Professor John Miles, Board Director, Arup and Research Chair of Transitional Energy Strategies, Cambridge University, told us that "computing and connectivity will allow [traffic] flows to be much smoother and much more intense."[34] Smoother and more intense traffic flows would decrease congestion and reduce the expense and environmental impact of constructing new roads. TRL concluded that "the impacts of automation could be colossal and change the face of surface transport".[35]

28. Professor Paul Newman, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, highlighted how new technology might revolutionise transport:

    Computing changes it all, and computing has not changed transport much at all yet. If you look at what computing has done to telephones, media and finance, you will see that in cars and vehicles, and they will be better because of computing.[36]

29. Professor Newman told us that demand from motorists would drive how quickly new technologies penetrated the market. He pointed out that for some people driving might come to be seen as a time wasting activity that carried environmental and safety risks. He suspected that in time demand from some motorists would drive the production of autonomous vehicles. He told us that "we are now starting to demand that we do not need to parallel park. This is not a life skill we need; cars will start to do it."[37]

30. Professor Miles told us that taken together small technological advances, such as automatic parking, lane change control and anti-collision systems, mean we are approaching the point where a car could drive itself and that autonomous vehicles are closer than many people think.[38] Professor Oliver Carsten, Professor of Transport Safety, University of Leeds, expressed a slightly different view. He told us that "real entry into the market will almost certainly not be as rapid as the optimists have predicted" but even he saw that the introduction of automated technologies was inevitable.[39]

31. Gerry Keaney, Chief Executive Officer, British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA), argued that the Government should plan how to get more cars containing new technology on the road quickly, so that "the benefits are seen, the manufacturers get scale, the prices come down and suddenly the whole thing becomes very much more attractive from a consumer point of view in terms of buying the product".[40] New technologies tend to be introduced at the top end of the market, and it might take 20 to 30 years for such technologies to percolate through the entire vehicle fleet. For the next 30 years, manual, semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles are all likely to run on UK roads. The DfT should prepare for a transition period when manual, semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles are all running together on UK roads. During the transition period only some of the benefits promised by autonomous vehicles and the application of modern communications technology to motoring will be realised. The full benefits cannot be realised until there is wide uptake of such technologies. It is also important that the DfT clarifies how liabilities will be apportioned in such circumstances.

32. The DfT should identify technologies whose introduction needs to be accelerated and devise a range of fiscal and other incentives to increase their rate of adoption. Such an approach would build on current policy in relation to vehicle emissions, where low-emission vehicles are subject to lower rates of vehicle excise duty. In the past, the gradual tightening of certification and testing requirements has reduced engine emissions, and a similar approach could be used now to accelerate take-up. Potential levers to nudge behaviour include type certification, road worthiness standards, mandating the fitting of particular technologies to new and existing vehicles by a specified date, scrappage schemes and fiscal incentives. Some of those levers may be helpful in tackling more than one issue—a scrappage scheme could see improvements to emissions and safety—and the DfT might wish to prioritise measures which help to secure more than one benefit. The DfT should also take account of the relative efficiency and effectiveness of these measures in delivering the changes required.


33. Telematics—also known as 'black boxes'—monitor the location of a driver and driving performance. Telematics are currently used by insurers to offer lower premiums to higher risk drivers and by commercial fleet managers to monitor vehicle locations and driving standards. The BVRLA explained that black boxes help organisations to improve the cost and time-efficiency of journeys. It proposed that such data could inform policy on issues such as road congestion, emissions reduction and motoring taxation.[41] Professor Sampson predicted that by 2050 insurance companies will require all vehicles to be equipped with an in-vehicle black box, which would underpin the introduction of pay-as-you-drive insurance.[42]

34. Professor Sampson told us that there is limited published evidence on the impact of telematics on reducing road accidents. He added that only insurers would know the extent to which black-box insurance had affected accident rates for novice drivers.[43] Richard Cuerden, Technical Director for Vehicle Safety, Engineering and Assurance, Transport Research Laboratory explained that fitting black boxes in fleets was associated with a reduced number of accidents and that black boxes tended to act as an incentive for people to drive better. However, he highlighted the limited data on their effect on higher risk groups, such as young and novice drivers. He concluded that black boxes could provide valuable information on why accidents happen and that they have enormous potential as a research tool.[44]

35. Professor Carsten pointed to the need for controlled, structured trials, rather than relying on data from people who had self-selected for a particular kind of insurance.[45] The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) recommended that the DfT should develop legal frameworks and protocols to provide greater access to black box data for crash investigation and safety research purposes.[46] Ian Yarnold, International Vehicle Standards, DfT, told us that the DfT had a good working relationship with UK insurers and that he was not aware that the insurance industry was holding back any information.[47]

Big data

36. "Big data" is data on a scale or of a complexity that makes it challenging to use. However, new ways to collect, manage and analyse such big data raise the possibility of maintaining a smarter and more efficient transport system.[48] Engineering the Future predicted that developments in big data will have a huge impact on national transport strategy.[49] Graham Grant, Transport Development Specialist, Newcastle City Council told us that that Newcastle City Council was engaging with local software developers to incentivise them to develop applications to improve local transport.[50]

37. Telematics offers an invaluable source of data to inform policy making to improve driving behaviour and safety. For example, information derived from telematics could be used to manage traffic flows or to inform highways design. Fleet managers are using telematics to improve the driving of their vehicles and insurance companies are collecting data from a growing number of drivers. There is no evidence to suggest that the DfT has taken steps to determine how such new sources of information could be used to inform policy making. The DfT should work with representatives from the whole of the insurance industry and others who hold data on driving—for example, motor manufacturers, manufacturers of satellite navigation systems and fleet owners and operators—to see what use it might make of anonymised data from vehicles and how this can be combined with existing information from the Highways Agency to inform policy. In analysing such data, the DfT must take into account the nature of the information and the extent to which its source may skew the conclusions that can be drawn from it—for example, telematics data from insurance companies may be drawn from self-selecting group of drivers and material from fleet operators who have large numbers of delivery drivers may be atypical.

Data governance

38. The increase in the volume and variety of transport data presents new challenges in relation to data governance. Transport data collection, analysis and dissemination is sometimes fragmented and inconsistent, because there are many different infrastructure operators, service operators and information service providers. The Institute of Advanced Motorists commented that "the connected car of the future works on data and who owns that data and to what use it is put is an important part of the debate on the future of motoring".[51]

39. Different issues are raised by different types of data. The BVRLA told us that it made sense for drivers' data to be made available through systems such as eCall [see paragraph 72] which were designed to take care of a driver after an accident, but that some other instances of data sharing could be seen as an infringement on drivers' personal liberty:

    I can see that a driver, even if it is a car owned by one of our members, would not want to sign up to the fact potentially that somebody knows exactly where they are 24 hours a day, how that car is being driven, every time they break the speed limit or if they drive in a dangerous way or a safe way. Those are very personal data and there has been no discussion about how widely they should be shared and who with.[52]

TRL told us that there was a gap in research into security of data and that issues relating to data reliability, security and ownership were missing from the government's motoring strategy.[53] Thatcham Research stated that many insurers had concerns about the lack of progress in developing European legislation regarding access to vehicle security data.[54] The BVRLA recommended that the Information Commissioner should investigate the current rules regulating fleet and driver information and issue further guidance to improve consumer confidence.[55]

40. The vast quantity of transport data now available presents tremendous opportunities to provide smarter, more efficient and more personalised transport systems. However, greater clarity is required on the practical application of data governance legislation. The DfT must ask the Information Commissioner to review the current rules and guidance on access to fleet and driver information and the rights of drivers and other interested parties to access vehicle data and to publish updated guidelines on the collection, access and use of vehicle data.

Low carbon vehicles and fuels

41. The UK is committed to reducing carbon emissions.[56] Carbon emissions from road transport must be reduced in order to meet that commitment. The Office of Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) was established in 2009 with the objective of positioning the UK at the global forefront of ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) development, manufacture and use so as to contribute to economic growth and to help reduce greenhouse gas emission and air pollution on the UK's roads. Low carbon vehicles are set to become an increasing proportion of the vehicle fleet. OLEV has set itself the target that every new car in 2040 will be a ULEV.[57]


42. Plug-in electric vehicles are a market-ready ULEV, and developing a market for them is a key part of OLEV's strategy. We commented on the Government's Plugged-In Places and Plug-In Grant schemes in our 2012 Report, "Plug-in vehicles, plugged in policy?", in which we noted that while consumer demand had increased since the introduction of those schemes, it remained relatively small.[58]

43. DfT data show that the uptake of plug-in vehicles has remained slower than projected, but that it has recently started to accelerate.[59] Professor Phil Blythe, Professor of Intelligent Transport Systems, Newcastle University, told us that more plug-in and hybrid vehicles were sold in the last quarter than in the last four or five years, and that other countries had experienced similar issues with slower than expected adoption in the early stages.[60] Comparing progress in the UK with other countries, he stated that the leaders in the field were the USA, Japan and Norway, but that the UK was "probably in the top ten".[61]

44. Witnesses identified a number of issues affecting the rate of uptake of plug-in EVs and the contribution that plug-in EVs could make towards emissions reduction targets:

i)  Establishing an adequate recharging infrastructure is essential. There is still no single system enabling drivers to locate the nearest charging point.[62] Range anxiety remains a key barrier to adoption of EVs. A basic network of recharging stations must be in place to ensure the market can grow, with recharging stations where people want them, not just where they are commercially profitable.[63] The evaluation of the Government's Plugged-In Places EV infrastructure pilots has been poor, and there has been a slow response to lessons learned from them.[64] In addition, there is a risk of divergence on technical specifications for charging points.[65]

ii)  More public exposure to EVs is required to convince people that they are a viable option. We heard that schemes involving seven-day trials of EVs are a good way of increasing public awareness and promoting sales.[66] More incentives are needed to persuade people to change from vehicles which already suit them to low emission alternatives such as EVs.[67] Norway, which has been very successful at adopting EVs, used a range of incentives such as free parking, use of bus lanes and exemption from toll charges to increase uptake.[68]

iii)  Clean cars are dependent on clean power. As the uptake of EVs increases, emission reductions will increasingly be dependent on decarbonising power generation.[69] The electrification of vehicles will require a massive shift in the shape and management of the electricity system of the future.[70]


45. Fuel cell electric vehicles generate electricity from fuels such as hydrogen. Preparing for hydrogen FCEVs is one of OLEV's stated priorities, which it is carrying out through its UKH2 Mobility project. Professor Blythe stated that the challenge was to get the infrastructure in place to support FCEVs.[71] Air Products, a hydrogen manufacturer and provider of hydrogen-fuelling stations, pointed to the potential air quality and environmental health benefits of FCEVs, but it identified a number of barriers inhibiting uptake. It called for:

i)  greater early support for fuelling infrastructure so as to create a safer market for industry to invest in;

ii)  greater support towards the cost of FCEVs during the early stages of market development to make them more affordable for consumers; and

iii)  Government support for the production of 'brown' hydrogen, generated using non-renewable sources of energy, until the market is sufficiently developed to justify investment in 'green' hydrogen production pathways.[72]


46. Electric vehicles are just one of many potential low carbon solutions available to motorists, and no single fuel or technology is likely to meet all future requirements.[73] The RAC Foundation's 2013 review of low carbon fuels and cars concluded that there was likely to be a range of options for consumers on fuels and on powertrains, and that there was likely to be a range of solutions for different transport applications.[74] Witnesses agreed that the Government should continue to encourage market adoption of a range of proven technologies.[75] We heard:

i)  Electric cars are one of a range of technical solutions and will not suit everyone. The Government should set targets in relation to emissions and energy-efficiency to encourage the development of alternative technical solutions to satisfy consumer needs.[76]

ii)  There is a general lack of knowledge in the transport sector regarding the lifecycle emissions of different technologies when design, production, use and disposal are taken into account. More information is required to help drive effective commercial and public sector decision making.[77]

iii)  Different solutions may be appropriate for different parts of the UK.[78] For example, hydrogen trials could be carried out more sustainably in the Teesside region, where hydrogen is produced locally.[79] However, motoring is a global industry, and products will need to be compatible across fuel infrastructures and vehicles.[80]

iv)  Different solutions may be appropriate for different uses.[81] For example, the Dearman Engine, which is powered by liquid air or liquid nitrogen, is designed to provide auxiliary power for refrigerated or air conditioned vehicles, which is a key challenge for electric vehicles.[82]

v)  The slow uptake of new technologies means that Government funding will be required during this phase of development.[83]

vi)  Government must not risk distorting the market by trying to pick winners.[84] Government should exercise caution in the use of subsidies to support fledgling technologies or fuels, since withdrawing too early from incentive frameworks can negatively impact ULEV take-up.[85] It should learn lessons from the withdrawal of Government investment in LPG autogas, which had a serious impact on that market.[86]

vii)  The supportive treatment of ULEVs within national tax and fiscal structures will continue to have an impact on take-up, and industry and drivers would welcome greater certainty about future policy.[87] A long-term plan is required to enable people to make decisions about how and when they might switch to a ULEV.[88]

viii)  Government should articulate a clear and consistent strategy for transport fuels, with clearly defined timescales.[89]


47. Realising OLEV's vision of every car being a ULEV by 2040 will require more rapid uptake than has been achieved to date. Gerry Keaney, BVRLA, pointed out that with around 33 million cars on the UK roads, and with only around 2.4 million new cars being registered in a busy year for new car sales, replacing all existing cars with newer, cleaner and more efficient ones would take many years.[90]

48. Witnesses made a number of proposals on how the Government could accelerate progress:

i)  The Carbon Trust suggested that targeted, strategic government support for research and development, investment and planning would help to bring forward changes within a more defined timeframe and convince consumers to adopt new technologies.[91]

ii)  TRL stated that more research was needed to understand what people want and why they might choose to change to low carbon vehicles.[92]

iii)  The BVRLA recommended that Government consider incentives such as access to car rental and car clubs to encourage people to give up their older, more polluting cars, introducing green lanes for low emission vehicles in areas of high congestion and low air quality and conducting a full audit of local government corporate car schemes so as to inform future guidance for local councils on their transport schemes.[93]

iv)  Zero Carbon Futures suggested using planning legislation to encourage the inclusion of new technology infrastructure in railway station renovations, including plans for motoring technologies in new city developments and new car parks, developing carbon-free zones in cities, exempting low carbon vehicles on toll roads and allowing them to use bus lanes, and providing free or subsidised parking and charging for EVs.[94]

v)  TRL recommended new strategies such as using government fleets as test-beds for new technologies to enable an element of research and development while making new technology more visible and acceptable to the general public.[95]

vi)  The LGA called on Government to consider what more could be done to help local authorities with emissions reductions, including support and advice on the introduction of Low Emission Zones.[96]


49. Witnesses supported OLEV's work to bring industry and different Government Departments together to work on the same challenges.[97] Professor Blythe told us that it was taking longer than expected to make progress, but that this was not surprising given OLEV's difficult remit and the challenges of working for different masters.[98] Denis Naberezhnykh, Head of Low Carbon Vehicles and ITS Technology, TRL, commented that more clarity was needed over OLEV's role and how it related to other bodies such as Innovate UK and the Transport Systems Catapult. He stated that an overarching strategy was needed to articulate not only research and development priorities, but how such priorities would be developed into demonstration and implementation.[99]

50. Richard Bruce, Head of OLEV, said that OLEV's policy was "warmly supported" by Ministers, who were generally positive about its agenda.[100] The Minister explained that Government was not trying to pick technological winners, but rather was working towards the aspiration of reduced emissions to meet the UK's carbon plan by 2040.[101] She asserted that Government's role was to set the framework and the output and then let industry innovate. She noted that the 2040 target was driving a huge amount of innovation.[102] The Minister told us that Government was "trying very hard to offer stability of regulation and policy interest, at least over the seven years that are a typical product cycle for cars",[103] but that the issue of reducing revenue from fuel duty was a matter for the Treasury.[104]

51. Low carbon vehicles are set to make up an increasing proportion of the vehicle fleet and will form a key part of the UK's motoring future. Adoption has been slower than projected, but it is now starting to accelerate. Different technologies are becoming available, but drivers need more incentives to switch to low emission vehicles, confidence that refuelling infrastructure will be available and certainty in the Government's long-term policies on investment, subsidy and taxation regimes. The creation of OLEV has been a positive step, but implementing its strategy will be challenging. Future fuels can contribute to UK decarbonisation and air quality targets. Government cannot pick a winner, but it can provide certainty for market participants to incentivise investment.

52. The DfT should ensure that OLEV:

·  clarifies long-term policies on investment, subsidy and taxation regimes for ULEVs;

·  sets out an action plan for accelerating the uptake of ULEVs, including an assessment of how different incentives could contribute to that objective; and

·  defines a strategy to meet European Commission targets on refuelling infrastructure in UK.

19   The Economist, Why Sweden has so few road deaths, 26 February 2014 Back

20   Q193 Back

21   Q162 Back

22   Q245 Back

23   Q250 Back

24   Q243; Q255 Back

25   Qq 160-164 Back

26   Huffington Post, Google's self-driving cars 'programmed to break the speed limit', 19 August 2014 Back

27   Thatcham Research (MOF 023) para 2.1 Back

28   Thatcham Research, Autonomous emergency braking Back

29   Thatcham Research (MOF 023) Back

30   Professor Oliver Carsten (MOF 041) Back

31   Professor Oliver Carsten (MOF 041) Back

32   Q236 Back

33   Q2 Back

34   Q4 Back

35   TRL (MOF 007) para 32 Back

36   Q3 Back

37   Q9 Back

38   Q16 Back

39   Professor Oliver Carsten (MOF 041) para 5 Back

40   Q84 Back

41   British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (MOF 030) Back

42   Professor Eric Sampson, ITS in 2050  Back

43   Q192 Back

44   Qq 206-207 Back

45   Q210 Back

46   Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (MOF 047) Back

47   Q263 Back

48   Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, POSTnote 468, July 2014 Back

49   Engineering the Future (MOF 033) Back

50   Q124 Back

51   Institute of Advanced Motorists (MOF 020) Back

52   Q73 Back

53   TRL (MOF 007) Back

54   Thatcham Research (MOF 023) Back

55   British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (MOF 030) Back

56   The Climate Change Act 2008 requires the UK to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, relative to a 1990 baseline. Back

57   Office for Low Emission Vehicles, Driving the future today: a strategy for ultra low emission vehicles in the UK, 4 September 2013 Back

58   Transport Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Plug-in vehicles, plugged in policy?, HC239 Back

59   Department for Transport, All licensed vehicles and new registrations, various dates Back

60   Qq93-94 Back

61   Q99 Back

62   Q97 Back

63   Institute of Advanced Motorists (MOF 020) Back

64   TRL (MOF 007); ITS UK (MOF 013); Q97 Back

65   Q97 Back

66   Q96 Back

67   Q136 Back

68   Q94 Back

69   HM Treasury, The King review of low carbon cars, October 2007 Back

70   TRL (MOF 007); Engineering the Future (MOF 033) Back

71   Q101 Back

72   Air Products (MOF 014) Back

73   Institution of Mechanical Engineers (MOF 034); Toyota Motor Europe (MOF 012) Back

74   RAC Foundation, Powering Ahead: The future of low-carbon cars and fuels, April 2013 Back

75   Q102 Back

76   Institution of Mechanical Engineers (MOF 034) Back

77   TRL (MOF 007); Institution of Mechanical Engineers (MOF 034) Back

78   Q143 Back

79   Zero Carbon Futures (MOF 002) Back

80   Q149 Back

81   Q40 Back

82   Dearman Engine Company (MOF 040) Back

83   Zero Carbon Futures (MOF 002) Back

84   British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (MOF 030) Back

85   Autogas Ltd (MOF 009), UK Petroleum Industry Association (MOF 011), Toyota Motor Europe (MOF 012); British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (MOF 030); Q153 Back

86   Autogas Ltd (MOF 009) Back

87   Toyota Motor Europe (MOF 012); ITS UK (MOF 013); Institute of Advanced Motorists (MOF 020) Back

88   Q153 Back

89   UK Petroleum Industry Association (MOF 011) Back

90   Q61 Back

91   Carbon Trust (MOF 025) Back

92   TRL (MOF 007) Back

93   British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (MOF 030) Back

94   Zero Carbon Futures (MOF 002) Back

95   TRL (MOF 007) Back

96   Local Government Association (MOF 018) Back

97   Q107; Q143 Back

98   Q105 Back

99   Q106 Back

100   Q260 Back

101   Q246 Back

102   Q273 Back

103   Q266 Back

104   Q308 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2015
Prepared 6 March 2015