Stop the 'war on drivers'
Reform UK · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Stop the 'war on drivers'” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Personal liberty & free speech — Helps
moderate · moderate confidence
This policy removes a range of state-imposed restrictions on how people drive, what vehicles they can buy, and which streets they can use — all of which directly expand personal freedom of movement and choice. The main caveat is that some restrictions (like ULEZ charges) were themselves grounded in protecting others from harm, so the liberty gain is real but not uncontested.
The evidence
- The policy would legislate to ban ULEZ, Clean Air Zones, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods — removing restrictions on where and how people can drive. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “legislate to ban ULEZ, Clean Air Zones, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods”
- The policy would scrap 20 mph zones (except where safety is critical), removing a speed restriction imposed on drivers. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “scrap 20 MPH zones (except where safety is critical)”
- The policy would remove the ban on selling new petrol and diesel cars, restoring consumer choice over vehicle type. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “remove bans on petrol and diesel cars”
- The policy would remove legal requirements for manufacturers to sell electric cars, ending a state mandate on commercial actors. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “legal requirements for manufacturers to sell electric cars”
- The ZEV mandate, introduced in January 2024, requires a minimum proportion of manufacturers' sales to be zero-emission vehicles — a legal obligation on industry actors. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “The Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, introduced in January 2024, requires a minimum proportion of car manufacturers' sales to be zero-emission vehicles”
- A survey found 66% opposition to reducing 30mph roads to 20mph, and 67% finding 20mph limits 'too slow', indicating existing public sentiment that speed restrictions feel coercive. — visordown.com (media) — “66% opposition to reducing 30mph roads to 20mph, and 67% finding 20mph limits "too slow"”
- LTNs have been found to negatively impact mobility for disabled residents, with 86% of disabled respondents in a London survey feeling LTNs negatively impacted their mobility. — transportfutures.institute (media) — “a survey in London finding 86% of disabled respondents felt LTNs negatively impacted their mobility”
- Removing the petrol/diesel car ban and ZEV mandate would likely create uncertainty and deter investment in EV manufacturing and charging infrastructure. — theguardian.com (media) — “Removing the ban and ZEV mandate would likely create uncertainty and deter investment in the UK's EV manufacturing and charging infrastructure sectors”
Biggest unknown: Whether Parliament would uphold a blanket legislative ban on locally-democratically-enacted schemes like LTNs and CAZs, or whether courts would strike elements down on devolution/local-authority-autonomy grounds.
Our reading: O10 is the 'negative liberty' outcome: it improves when the state withdraws coercions over bodies, choices, movement, and property. This policy is almost entirely composed of such withdrawals. ULEZ and Clean Air Zones charge or restrict drivers from entering areas; LTNs physically redirect or block vehicular movement on public roads; 20 mph zones compel a speed lower than the previous legal limit; and the petrol/diesel ban plus the ZEV mandate restrict what vehicles consumers may buy and what manufacturers must sell. Each of these is a real, existing state coercion. Removing them constitutes a clear, direct improvement to O10 indicators: freedom of movement, freedom from mandates, and property/consumer choice. The magnitude is moderate rather than major because: (a) ULEZ/CAZ charges are financial rather than criminal penalties; (b) 20 mph zones are not absolute prohibitions; (c) the ZEV mandate bears on manufacturers rather than individuals directly. The liberty gain is genuine and population-scale — millions of drivers and all car-buying consumers are affected. The evidence also shows LTNs produce real accessibility harms for disabled people, reinforcing that the restrictions removed are not trivially coercive. The policy's O10 effect is positive regardless of whether one values the health and safety benefits the removed schemes also deliver — those benefits score elsewhere (O5, O6); O10 scores liberty on its own. Confidence is moderate because the legislative mechanism (a nationwide ban on locally-enacted schemes) faces plausible legal and constitutional challenge, which could limit actual delivery.
Cost of living — Mixed picture
minor · low confidence
Scrapping ULEZ and clean-air charges saves money for drivers who currently pay them, but slowing the shift to electric vehicles means households miss out on lower running costs in the long run. The net effect on most people's bills is uncertain and depends heavily on whether they own a car and what type.
The evidence
- The policy would ban ULEZ, Clean Air Zones and LTNs, scrap 20mph zones, and remove the petrol/diesel ban and EV sales mandates. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will legislate to ban ULEZ, Clean Air Zones, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, scrap 20 MPH zones (except where safety is critical), and remove bans on petrol and diesel cars and legal requirements for manufactur…”
- The ZEV mandate requires rising proportions of manufacturer sales to be zero-emission, from 22% in 2024 to 100% in 2035. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “The Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, introduced in January 2024, requires a minimum proportion of car manufacturers' sales to be zero-emission vehicles, rising from 22% in 2024 to 80% by 2030 and 100% in 2035”
- EVs are cheaper to run than petrol cars, saving families up to £1,000 a year in fuel and maintenance. — economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “Electric vehicles (EVs) are generally cheaper to run due to lower fuel and maintenance costs, saving families up to £1,000 a year compared to petrol drivers”
- Upfront EV costs and charging infrastructure remain barriers to adoption. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “upfront costs and charging infrastructure are still barriers to adoption”
- Removing the EV mandate would likely slow improvements in charging infrastructure. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “It could also slow improvements in charging infrastructure”
- Manufacturers have offered large EV discounts to meet mandate targets, suggesting the mandate was putting downward pressure on EV prices. — mobilityways.com (media) — “Manufacturers have reportedly offered "enormous, and unsustainable, £4.5bn worth of EV discounting" in 2024 to meet targets”
Biggest unknown: How quickly EV purchase prices fall and whether the mandate was the decisive driver of that — if EVs become affordable without the mandate, the long-run cost disadvantage shrinks significantly.
Our reading: On cost of living, the policy has two main effects pulling in opposite directions. In the near term, removing ULEZ and Clean Air Zone charges directly reduces costs for drivers who currently pay them — particularly those with older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. This is real, immediate relief for affected households, many of whom may be lower-income drivers unable to afford newer compliant cars. However, the evidence provides no quoted figure for the size of these savings per household, limiting precision. Over the longer run, the policy slows the EV transition. EVs are projected to save households up to £1,000 a year in running costs versus petrol cars. The ZEV mandate was actively pushing manufacturers to discount EVs to hit targets — removing it reduces that competitive pressure on pricing. Slower EV uptake also likely slows charging infrastructure rollout, making EVs less practical and keeping households locked into higher-cost petrol or diesel fuel. The net effect depends on household type: car-free households are largely unaffected by either mechanism; households in ULEZ zones with older cars gain immediately; households who would have switched to EVs in the next decade lose out on running-cost savings. Because these effects run in opposite directions across different income groups and time horizons, and because the evidence does not quantify the ULEZ charge savings per household to weigh against the EV running-cost gap, the honest verdict is 'mixed' — with the long-run direction leaning toward worsening disposable income for most car-owning households as fuel costs remain elevated relative to an EV-transition scenario.
Crime, justice & national security — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Scrapping 20mph zones and banning Low Traffic Neighbourhoods would remove measures with strong evidence of reducing road deaths and serious injuries on residential streets. The safety loss is real, though concentrated in areas that currently have these schemes.
The evidence
- The policy would scrap 20mph zones (except where safety is critical) and ban Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “scrap 20 MPH zones (except where safety is critical), and remove bans on petrol and diesel cars”
- TfL research found a 34% reduction in people killed or seriously injured on borough roads after 20mph limits, with a 75% reduction in children killed. — tfl.gov.uk (government) — “Transport for London (TfL) research found a 34% reduction in people killed or seriously injured on borough roads following the implementation of 20mph limits, with a 75% reduction in children killed”
- A large UK evidence review found 20mph limits reduce road casualties by around 23% and collisions by approximately 26%. — fletcherssolicitors.co.uk (media) — “introducing 20mph limits can reduce road casualties by around 23%, with collisions falling by approximately 26%”
- In Wales, a default 20mph limit in 2023 led to a 26.5% drop in injuries and fatalities. — regit.cars (media) — “the introduction of a default 20mph limit in built-up areas in 2023 led to a 26.5% drop in injuries and fatalities”
- London LTNs saw a 50% reduction in road casualties within the scheme areas, with no increase on boundary roads. — content.tfl.gov.uk (government) — “a study found a 50% reduction in road casualties within LTNs, with no increase on boundary roads”
- Another study found LTNs produced a 35% reduction in all injuries and 37% reduction in deaths and serious injuries, preventing over 600 injuries including 100 deaths or serious injuries. — theguardian.com (media) — “a 35% reduction in all injuries and a 37% reduction in deaths and serious injuries within LTNs, preventing over 600 injuries, including 100 deaths or serious injuries”
- Removing LTNs could increase traffic through residential streets, diminishing road safety benefits observed in existing LTNs. — think.aber.ac.uk (academic) — “Removing LTNs could increase traffic through residential streets, diminishing the benefits of reduced noise and increased active travel (walking and cycling) observed in existing LTNs”
- A 2018 DfT study on signed-only 20mph limits showed small effects on speed (less than 1mph median reduction) and no statistically significant effect on casualties in most locations. — gov.uk (media) — “A 2018 Department for Transport (DfT) study on "signed-only" 20mph limits showed small effects on speed (less than 1mph median reduction) and no statistically significant effect on casualties in most locations”
Biggest unknown: How many of the current 20mph zones would be retained under the 'except where safety is critical' exemption, which could significantly limit the casualty increase.
Our reading: O5 encompasses street safety, and road casualties are a direct indicator. The policy removes two classes of measure — 20mph zones and LTNs — with substantial cited evidence of reducing deaths and serious injuries on residential streets. The TfL and Wales data (E15, E17) show large casualty reductions from 20mph limits; the large UK evidence review (E16) corroborates. LTN evidence (E8, E9) shows halving of casualties within scheme areas with no displacement to boundary roads. Removing both sets of measures would, absent the 'safety critical' exemption, reverse these gains at scale across England. The one genuine counter-weight from the evidence is the 2018 DfT study (E20) finding near-zero speed and casualty effects from signed-only 20mph limits — this suggests effectiveness varies by enforcement and implementation. However, the more recent and geographically broader evidence (TfL, Wales) leans clearly toward material safety benefits, and that evidence is institutional rather than advocacy-sourced. The 'except where safety is critical' carve-out in the policy is a genuine unknown: if widely applied, it could preserve many high-risk zones. But as written, the default is removal, which the evidence indicates would increase casualties. The air-quality/health effects of ULEZ and CAZ removal are real but scored on O3/O6 rather than O5 — only the road-safety dimension belongs here. On road safety alone, the direction is worsens, with moderate magnitude reflecting the real caveat about implementation scope and the DfT study's partial contrary finding.
Clean environment & nature — Hurts
major · moderate confidence
Banning clean air zones, scrapping 20mph limits, and removing EV mandates would reverse proven air quality gains and make the UK's legally binding climate targets much harder to meet. The long-term damage to emissions and public health from pollution would be substantial.
The evidence
- The policy would ban ULEZ, Clean Air Zones, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, scrap most 20mph zones, and remove the ban on new petrol/diesel cars and the ZEV mandate. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will legislate to ban ULEZ, Clean Air Zones, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, scrap 20 MPH zones (except where safety is critical), and remove bans on petrol and diesel cars and legal requirements for manufactur…”
- Transport is the largest emitting sector of the UK economy, responsible for 29% of total greenhouse gas emissions, with cars and taxis accounting for 54% of those. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Transport is the largest emitting sector of the UK economy, responsible for 29% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2023, with cars and taxis accounting for 54% of these emissions”
- The ZEV mandate requires EV sales to rise from 22% in 2024 to 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “The Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, introduced in January 2024, requires a minimum proportion of car manufacturers' sales to be zero-emission vehicles, rising from 22% in 2024 to 80% by 2030 and 100% in 2035”
- London's ULEZ reduced fine particulate matter exposure, with some of the most deprived communities seeing an estimated 80% reduction in exposure to illegal pollution levels. — london.gov.uk (government) — “Some of London's most deprived communities, particularly those near busy roads, have seen an estimated 80% reduction in exposure to illegal pollution levels”
- A University of Bath study found London's clean air policies led to an 18.5% reduction in sick leave and a 10.2% decrease in respiratory issues, with annual public health savings of over £37 million. — bath.ac.uk (academic) — “A University of Bath study found that London's clean air policies (LEZ and ULEZ) led to an 18.5% reduction in sick leave, a 6.8% drop in general health problems, and a 10.2% decrease in respiratory issues, resulting in a…”
- TfL research found a 34% reduction in people killed or seriously injured on borough roads following 20mph limits, with a 75% reduction in children killed. — tfl.gov.uk (government) — “Transport for London (TfL) research found a 34% reduction in people killed or seriously injured on borough roads following the implementation of 20mph limits, with a 75% reduction in children killed”
- Removing the EV ban and ZEV mandate would be a significant setback for the UK's legally binding net-zero target by 2050, as electric vehicles are crucial for reducing transport emissions. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Removing these policies would be a significant setback for the UK's legally binding net-zero carbon emissions target by 2050, making it much harder to achieve, as electric vehicles are crucial for reducing transport emis…”
- Removing LTNs could increase traffic through residential streets, reducing benefits of reduced noise and increased active travel. — think.aber.ac.uk (academic) — “Removing LTNs could increase traffic through residential streets, diminishing the benefits of reduced noise and increased active travel (walking and cycling) observed in existing LTNs”
- Removing the ZEV mandate would likely deter investment in EV manufacturing and charging infrastructure. — theguardian.com (media) — “Removing the ban and ZEV mandate would likely create uncertainty and deter investment in the UK's EV manufacturing and charging infrastructure sectors”
Biggest unknown: How quickly the EV market would grow without mandates, and whether consumer demand alone could partially maintain the emissions trajectory.
Our reading: This policy directly dismantles the main mechanisms through which the UK has been reducing transport-related air pollution and emissions. Transport is the largest single emitting sector of the UK economy, with cars dominant within it. The ZEV mandate is the principal instrument driving decarbonisation of the car fleet; removing it would, according to the House of Commons Library evidence, make meeting the legally binding 2050 net-zero target materially harder. In the near term, banning ULEZ and CAZs would reverse demonstrated air quality gains — including an 80% reduction in illegal pollution exposure in some deprived communities and £37 million in annual public health savings — directly worsening the clean environment fundamental. Banning LTNs would push more vehicle traffic back onto residential streets, undoing noise and active-travel benefits. Scrapping most 20mph zones reverses road safety gains (34% fewer killed or seriously injured per TfL) and has some secondary air quality relevance. Over the long term, stalling the EV transition locks in combustion-engine fleet emissions for a further decade or more, given typical vehicle lifespans. Absent the mandate, manufacturers have indicated they would decelerate EV development. The counterfactual — no policy — means the UK car fleet remains petrol/diesel-dominated for significantly longer, compounding both climate and air-quality harm. The evidence supporting improved air quality from ULEZ and CAZs comes from multiple institutional and academic sources (University of Bath, TfL, London government) and is consistent in direction. The DfT's more ambiguous 2018 finding on 20mph limits is the main evidential caveat, but more recent TfL data shows stronger safety benefits. Overall, the cumulative effect across air quality, emissions trajectory, and biodiversity-adjacent indicators (active travel, noise) is a clear and major worsening, felt most acutely in the long term through the EV transition setback.