The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

A group of EU countries, led by Germany, is seeking to overturn a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2035.

The EU has delayed a landmark vote on the phase-out of petrol and diesel cars, largely due to intervention from Germany’s coalition government.

Supporters of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels or e-fuels, coalition members the Free Democrats (FDP) want new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles running on these to be exempt from the proposed ban.

Poland, Italy, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria have also voiced opposition to the ban, while Austrian chancellor Karl Nehammer welcomed FDP’s stance, saying he would also oppose banning ICE vehicles.

Sandra Roling, director of transport for the Climate Group, said: “It is deeply concerning that Germany is leading efforts to postpone the EU’s agreed 2035 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and seek concessions for e-fuels.

“That six other countries are now rowing in behind Germany risks undermining business trust in the EU itself, not to mention having a detrimental effect on the health of the EU’s people and its climate, along with prolonging the life of the internal combustion engine.”

The EU Parliament voted to back a European Commission proposal for a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, last year.

The plans were unveiled in 2021, and seek a reduction to zero CO2 emissions from new cars sold in the bloc by 2035.

MEPs voted to require carmakers to cut their average fleet emissions by 15% in 2025, compared to 2021, by 55% in 2030, and by 100% in 2035.

It accelerated the EU’s previous plan, which targeted a 37.5% reduction by the end of the decade.

In a letter to the European Commission, the Climate Group along with 47 businesses have warned that any delay of the ban would have a devastating impact on air quality and the environment across the bloc and would call into question the EU’s ability to reach its climate commitments.

Signatories to the letter include Volvo Cars, Ford of Europe and Vattenfall, who say that going ahead with the ban as planned would provide legislative certainty, which is vital for businesses to push forward with their decarbonisation plans and invest in electric vehicles (EVs).

Rowing back now would set a dangerous precedent, undermining business trust in the EU’s legislative process, the businesses argue, it adds.

“Legislative certainty is vital for business planning,” said Roling. “Our asks are simple. Stick to the 2035 date, and no concessions for e-fuels. Give businesses the clarity and certainty they need to invest in the switch to electric vehicles.”

The UK announced its ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2030, three years ago.

The sale of hybrid cars and vans that can drive a significant distance with no carbon coming out of the tailpipe will continue to be sold until 2035.

Fleet operators from the UK believe certain key commercial vehicles may require exemptions from the ICE ban, but there are currently no plans to change the deadlines previously agreed here.

Jim Rowan, CEO of Volvo Cars, said: “Now is not the time for backtracking and blocking of science-based climate targets for our industry.

“Now is not the time to put domestic political interests ahead of the health and welfare of our planet and EU citizens, and indeed of future generations.

“Now is the time for strong, decisive and progressive policy and leadership.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The cost of vehicle repairs has risen by 40% from 2018 to 2022, according to analysis of extended warranty claims paid over five years by Intelligent Motoring. 

The average cost of warranty claims rose 37% between July and December 2022.

Covid-19, followed by soaring energy prices and continuing supply chain issues have continued to challenge the automotive sector.

However, Intelligent Motoring’s study of over 12,000 warranty claims reveals that rising repair costs began accelerating during the economic uncertainty that followed the UK’s Brexit referendum in June 2016.

In the past five years, warranty claims costs increased the most during 2018 to 2019, with the average claim cost rising 19%, while 2020-2021 saw a 10% increase.

Duncan McClure Fisher, CEO of Intelligent Motoring, a provider of automotive warranties, insurance products and aftersales solutions, said, “Without doubt the majority were unprepared for the knock Covid-19 inflicted on the automotive sector.

“But the industry had been facing challenges even before the pandemic hit, meaning Covid-19 was simply another element that deepened those difficulties.

“The resulting financial impact on motorists is significant and has been made worse by wider pressures including rising inflation and the overall increased cost of living.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

There were almost 2,500 casualties in relation to drug-driving in 2021, representing a 260% increase since 2012, analysis of data from the Department for Transport (DfT) suggests.

The issue has also been felt in the courts, says IAM RoadSmart, with the number of drug-driving convictions increasing year-on-year, reaching 12,500 in 2019.

Almost half (44%) of these crimes are perpetrated by repeat offenders, with many of these cases occurring within one year.

IAM RoadSmart’s analysis comes amid worrying reports that, due to testing protocols which requires blood samples to be taken by a healthcare practitioner, some police officers are resorting to bringing drug-driving suspects to A&E departments to take a sample.

A IAM RoadSmart survey of 2,028 motorists found that one-in-10 respondents said that they have driven, or been a passenger in a vehicle, where the driver has been under the influence of illegal drugs.

The survey also discovered that 6% of people would be comfortable driving while under the influence of illegal drugs, and 14% of those surveyed stated that they would not stop a family member or friend who was planning to drive while under the influence of drugs.

IAM RoadSmart’s most recent annual safety culture report showed that motorists consider drink and drug-drivers as one of the biggest risks to their personal safety – more than other issues such as speeding on residential streets, people driving aggressively or not wearing a seat belt.

Neil Greig, director of policy and research at IAM RoadSmart, said: “With cases surging and attitudes as they are, Britain’s drug-drive picture is a bleak one.

“IAM RoadSmart has already proposed a smart package of solutions to help address this issue, including: developing a dedicated drug-drive course, prescription reform and for the Government to finally release the outcome of its own drug-driving consultation.

“If these are actioned, we might finally see progress made on this critical road safety issue before more lives are tragically lost.”

IAM RoadSmart recently called on the Government to reform the approach to drug-driving. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The huge potential of reducing a vehicle’s impact on the climate by going electric is being diminished by a growing trend towards larger and heavier plug-in cars, new research suggests.

Green NCAP’s results, published today (Thursday, March 23), show that vehicle size is “significantly” increasing the negative impact on climate and energy demand, driving not only a rise in fuel and electric energy consumption, but also creating a wider footprint in vehicle and battery production.

It tested the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy demand of 34 cars in 2022, with different powertrain types: battery electric, hybrid electric, conventional petrol and diesel, and one vehicle, the Ford Puma, that runs on alternative fuel.

The LCA calculations used Green NCAP’s interactive Life Cycle Assessment tool, with calculations based on the average energy mix of the 27 EU Member States and the UK, and an average mileage of 240,000km (150,000 miles) over 16 years.

Green NCAP says the results show the “current and continuous trend” towards larger and heavier cars “significantly increases” the negative impact on climate and energy demand.

It drives not only a rise in fuel and electric energy consumption, but also creates a wider footprint in vehicle and battery production.

LCA results from the 34 tested cars show that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are ahead in reducing greenhouse gases with 40‑50% less emissions compared to conventional petrol cars, depending on the model chosen.

In terms of primary energy demand, the differences between electric and conventional cars are less.

The hybrid electric sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that were tested, have higher fuel consumption and, due to increased emissions in the usage phase, have life cycle values in the range of 200‑240g CO2-equivalent/km and an estimated 0.85‑1.0 kWh/km.

These numbers lie between the values of a large electric SUV and a conventional petrol- or diesel-powered counterpart.

In the case of the bio-ethanol (E85) operated Ford Puma, compared to the same car in petrol mode, greenhouse gas emissions reduced to a level closer to the range of battery electric cars.

The processes needed for the bio-fuel production increase the Puma’s life cycle energy demand by 57%, yet given 60% of the total energy needed is renewable, much less fossil fuel is used, said Green NCAP.

The calculations show the considerable differences between each car’s impact on the environment, but also reveal the significant influence of mass on greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy demand.

Green NCAP says that this is clearly seen for all powertrain types even though the correlation might be slightly distorted for some cars due to differences in aerodynamic drag or powertrain efficiency.

Nevertheless, it says, the overlying message is clear – the heavier the vehicle, the more harm it does to the environment and the extra energy required to drive the car.

In general, battery electric vehicles emit significantly less greenhouse gases over their lifetime, but some of the gains are lost due to their increased weight.

Aleksandar Damyanov, Green NCAP’s technical manager, explained: “Electric vehicles and electrification in general offer huge potential in reducing greenhouse gases, but the ever-increasing trend of heavier vehicles diminishes this prospect.

“To counteract this, Green NCAP calls on manufacturers to reduce the mass of their products and calls on consumers to make purchasing decisions that not only consider the powertrain of their new cars, but also consider their weight.”

To better illustrate how mass affects environmental performance, Green NCAP has performed additional numerical simulations based on real-world Green NCAP measurements.

These studies show that all three powertrain types (BEV, non-rechargeable hybrid HEV and conventional ICE), when their mass increases, have the same relative rise in energy consumption of about 2% per 100kg.

However, their absolute consumption figures are very different.

Furthermore, higher mass is a major factor in the environmental impact of vehicle production.

Based on today’s estimates, a net mass increase of 100kg potentially results in an additional 500‑650kg of greenhouse gas emissions and 1.9‑2.4 MWh of energy demand in vehicle production (without battery, including recycling).

Growing trend towards heavier vehicles

Over the past ten years, the average weight of vehicles sold has increased by about 9% or around 100kg.

Sales of small SUVs have increased five times, becoming the most sold vehicles in 2022 with about four million cars sold across Europe.

Large SUV sales have further increased seven times leading to a total sales number of roughly 700,000 cars.

For a compact family car, the 100kg average increase in weight is responsible for about 1.4 tonnes of additional greenhouse gas emissions and 5.7 MWh of extra energy used.

According to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), in 2022, 9.3 million vehicles were sold, out of which 12.2% were battery electric.

This leads to a revealing calculation – assuming eight million vehicles are on average 100kg heavier, the impact of this weight increase on the climate is the equivalent of about 200,000 extra cars on European roads.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

It is inevitable that if the government is to encourage the move to electric cars they must disincentivise the continued purchase of petrol and diesel cars. Increased fuel duty is of course one thing that can be done, first registration tax is another. Let’s see what the experts have to say.

A planned 5p rise in fuel duty could cause “untold damage” if the Government decides to go ahead with it in the next budget, warns RAC Fuel Watch.

It says drivers face a “pump price shock” in less than two weeks unless the Chancellor decides to keep the 5p duty cut put in place a year ago, and cancel the annual planned hike at the Spring Budget on 15 March.

RAC fuel spokesman Simon Williams said: “All eyes are now on what the Chancellor decides to do with fuel duty at the Budget in just two weeks’ time. While we accept the 5p cut introduced last year can’t last forever, with household finances under even more pressure this Spring than they were a year ago, we don’t think now is the time to be removing it.

“To decide to raise prices by 5p on both fuels would prove punishing to households and businesses struggling to make ends meet, and may have a detrimental effect on both inflation – which the Government is desperate to bring down – and the wider economy. In the case of diesel, it would also mean the UK has the highest fuel duty rate in the whole of Europe.

“We also hope Mr Hunt isn’t about to become the first Chancellor in 12 years not to cancel the annual planned fuel duty rise. If he were to go ahead with it, untold damage could be caused.”

February saw the average price of a litre of unleaded come down another penny (1.26p) to 147.72p, while diesel dropped 3.19p to 167.19p. The falls make the cost of filling a 55-litre family petrol car £81.25 (down £0.69 from £81.94 a month earlier), and the diesel equivalent £91.95 (down from £93.71 at the start of February).

While the reduction in diesel prices is good news, wholesale price data analysed by the RAC shows drivers of the UK’s 12m diesel cars continue to pay a “needlessly high” price every time they fill up. Despite there being just a 6p difference between the wholesale prices of both diesel and petrol throughout all of February, diesel pump prices are currently 20p more than petrol. This means anyone filling a diesel car is, the RAC calculates, paying around £7 more per tank than they should be if diesel was being sold at a fairer price of around 155p a litre.

Last month, the RAC revealed that drivers of diesel vehicles are paying 20p per litre more for diesel than petrol, despite a wholesale cost difference of just 6p.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Tesla new car price reductions announced overnight on January 12 were significant, unexpected and widely publicised.

We may never know exactly what impact they had on used values, but the timing of the action, in the midst of a sharp downturn of used values for battery electric vehicles (BEVs), could not have been worse.

In the case of Tesla Model 3, used values had already decreased to the extent that nearly new used retail values were comfortably away from the revised list prices, but the impact on Model Y was to send used values for all three derivatives above cost new.

Unsurprisingly, there was an immediate impact on used values and we expect further significant reductions on this model.

Model 3, in particular, has been used across the industry as a comparison vehicle, even where it is not strictly a direct competitor vehicle for certain models.

As a result, the falls in Tesla Model 3 values are at least partially reflected in many other BEV models.

At Cap HPI we have made an additional negative adjustment to our forecasts due to a combination of reasons: an expectation of increased new car volume due to an improved competitive position (residual values and guaranteed future values are unlikely to decrease in pound note terms by as much as the list price reductions) and also the list price reductions potentially signal a move from a niche premium brand to a more mainstream, volume brand.

LEVERS FOR OTHER MANUFACTURERS

There are also other levers that rival manufacturers could pull in an attempt to reduce Tesla’s competitive advantage.

Although most BEV models are subject to limited fleet discounts, some adjustment may be possible.

Many will be looking very closely at their finance offerings to ensure interest rates are as competitive as possible and exploring whether there are any additional elements which can be incorporated into a new car deal, such as free servicing for a fixed period (unlikely to involve a large financial commitment for a new battery electric car).

As far as we are aware, most other OEMs are unlikely to follow suit with reductions to their own list prices.

Some, like Kia, came out very quickly, keen to rule such a move out and distance themselves from Tesla’s behaviour, while others have kept their cards closer to their chest.

It seems more likely that future planned list price increases may be cancelled, rather than making any attempt to match Tesla on the cost new front.

Some manufacturers also have the option of bringing cheaper versions of their existing vehicles to market; either by including smaller batteries which are already available in other markets, or reducing specification deemed to be unessential or adding limited value in the used market. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has moved its key accounts to a direct sales model as part of a new fleet strategy.

The change is expected to strengthen the carmaker’s relationships with end-user drivers and improve customer service for fleets.

It comes a year before the brand’s retailers fully transition to an agency sales model. Leasing companies will transact with JLR directly, with the vehicle then allocated to the driver’s nearest authorised Fleet and Business Centre for delivery.

A key element of the new process is that all JLR fleet customers will receive a full handover from a retailer.

Andrew Jago (pictured), general manager for fleet and business at JLR, said: “Anybody who drives a Jaguar Land Rover vehicle has made an informed choice to drive that vehicle and I think it’s really important we recognise that in the experience we deliver.

“Having a direct brand relationship with our customers allows us to give a great modern luxury purchase and ownership experience, but also the opportunity to renew it at the end.

“We want to strongly move away from preferred supplier arrangements where you’ve got groups who are taking orders for leasing companies and then delivering cars to customers through third party logistics companies.

“There’s no proper handover, there’s no introduction to the service department and there’s no ultimate relationship with the brand.”

Around a third of the JLR retail network is currently recognised as a Fleet and Business Centre. Jago said this gives sufficient geographical coverage, but will remain under review.

Retailers can opt-in to the scheme and must commit to putting the resource and standards in place to engage with fleet customers.

Jago, who has been responsible for fleet sales at JLR since 2019, added: “Utopia, for me, would be that every retailer can really deeply understand and support the needs of the fleet business user, but I won’t compromise on that just to say we’ve got full coverage.

“We want to make sure we are really putting our arms around those customers and are doing the job properly.”

Smaller fleets and small-to medium enterprises (SMEs) will continue to transact with their local dealer directly until the agency model is adopted in 2024.

OVERCOMING SUPPLY CHALLENGES

Last year saw sales declines for both the Jaguar and Land Rover brands, driven predominantly by a shortage of semiconductors. Jaguar sales were down by 35%, according to Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) figures, and Land Rover was 19% behind its 2021 sales.

While registrations fell, the brand launched new versions of its flagship Range Rover and Range Rover Sport models. Both achieved record levels of interest.

Order books across JLR’s portfolio consequentially swelled to more than 200,000 units, 50,000 of which are destined for UK customers.

Production of Jaguar’s XE and XF models was halted, while a large number of derivatives across the model lines of both marques were suspended or given lead times of more than 12 months, allowing factories to focus on building the hotly anticipated new models.

JLR’s UK sales director Paddy McGillycuddy has confirmed to Autocar that availability of the affected models is gradually returning.

Production is still largely centred around plug-in hybrid and electric variants, however. Jago said a number of core fleet derivatives can now be had within a six-month window and that his team is working closely with fleets and leasing companies to communicate any changes to lead times.

Among the cars in the spotlight are the electric I-Pace – Jago said production has been “fiercely protected” – and the recently updated Jaguar F-Pace and Range Rover Velar plug-in hybrids, which now feature a larger battery, giving them sufficient range to slip into the 8% benefit-in-kind (BIK) tax band.

Jaguar has a strategy to become an electric-only carmaker by 2025, but details on how that will be achieved are yet to be revealed. In the meantime, the new Range Rover and Range Rover Sport will have full electric availability from the end of 2024.

The focus remains firmly on the plug-in hybrid variants for now though. Both offer class-leading electric capability with up to 70 miles of zero-emission driving per charge.

Jago added: “The efficiency of the plug-in hybrid models we’re offering with Range Rover and Range Rover Sport has led to a significant shift in the salary sacrifice space, which, predominantly, is driven by battery electric vehicles (BEVs).

“With that 5% positioning on BIK it’s had huge appeal in the salary sacrifice space and we’ve seen people coming out of BEV into plug-in hybrid. There’s definitely more receptiveness to plug-in hybrids.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

A new approach to electrified powertrain development, which aims to cut costs by almost a third, has been unveiled by Nissan.

The manufacturer claims the new approach, called X-in-1, will result in a 30% reduction in development and manufacturing costs by 2026, compared to 2019.  

Nissan says that core electric vehicle (EV) and electric powertrain components will be shared and modularized.

The manufacturer has developed a three-in-one powertrain prototype, which modularises the motor, inverter and reducer in EVs.

A five-in-one prototype, which additionally modularises the generator and increaser, is planned for use in its e-Power vehicles.

The X-in-1 approach has been developed to enable EV and e-Power core components to be produced on the same line.

Nissan aims to achieve e-Power price parity with internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by around 2026.

Senior vice president at Nissan, Toshihiro Hirai, who leads powertrain and EV engineering powertrain development, said: “We make the most of our expertise and know-how from our more-than-a-decade long development and production of electrified technologies.

“Through our innovations in electrified powertrain development, we’ll continue to create new value for customers and deliver 100% motor-driven vehicles – EVs and e-Power – as widely as possible.”

Under its long-term vision, Nissan Ambition 2030, the company aims to bolster its line-up with 27 new electrified models, including 19 EVs, by 2030.

Nissan says it wants to bring the “unique value” of its electrified vehicles to the broadest range of customers by introducing the most suitable models to each market at the appropriate time.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Testing of a dozen electric vehicles (EVs) in identical wintry conditions has revealed real-world ranges of up to a third less than official figures suggest.

The cars were driven from fully charged until they stopped. The worst performer – the Funky Cat, launched by Chinese carmaker Ora last year – fell 32.8% short of its official range, covering just 130 miles before stopping, compared with the official figure of 193 miles.

The car that got closest to its official range was the Nissan Ariya; it fell 16% short of its official figure, covering 269 miles rather than the 322 suggested.

The tests, conducted by ‘What Car?’, also showed that the Tesla Model Y came second in terms of getting closest to its official range, recording a shortfall of 17.8% on its official range of 331 miles, but covered the most distance overall, at 272 miles.

Will Nightingale, head of What Car?’s test team, said: “More and more people own or are considering electric cars, and it’s important that they understand the pros and cons of this technology, especially in terms of how far they are likely to go between charges.”

In 2020, the Norwegian Automobile Federation tested 20 BEVs in real-world winter conditions, and found that, on average, the range dropped by around 20%: a scenario which will be all too familiar to fleet operators across the UK.

The winter weather also slows down the speed at which a BEV can be charged and, although fleets can take actions to reduce the negative effect of the cooler conditions, such slowing cannot be eliminated.

Last year, both Centrica and Royal Mail reported seeing up to a 40% drop in range for their BEVs in cold conditions.

“We introduced our first 100 EVs throughout 2018/19, so we’ve had them for a couple of winters now,” says Anna Pearson, fleet innovation and environment manager at Royal Mail.

“The colder and darker conditions mean we have to use the heaters and lights more, and we have seen a drop in range.

“We’ve probably seen a drop of about 25% to 30%. That, obviously, depends on how the vehicle is being driven as well.”

In the What Car? test, all cars were driven at the same time at a test venue chosen to remove any variables that might hinder comparing results.

The 15-mile route simulated real-world driving conditions, taking in 2.6 miles of stop-start urban driving, four miles at a steady 50mph and eight miles at a constant 70mph.

Prior to testing, the tyre pressures were set to the manufacturer recommendation, before the cars were fully charged and left outside overnight for roughly 14 hours in temperatures that ranged from 0 to 2 degrees centigrade.

The cars were then plugged in again to ensure the batteries were full, ‘eco’ (or the closest equivalent) driving mode was selected, and all 12 were driven in convoy, swapping running order regularly to ensure no benefits were conferred by road position, until they ran out of charge.

All cars ran their heating systems to provide an interior temperature independently verified at 19.5 degrees.

Real Range test – real-world winter range vs official range

Car	Official range (miles)	Winter test range (miles)	Shortfall
Nissan Ariya 87kWh Evolve	322	269	16.4%
Tesla Model Y Long Range	331	272	17.8%
Mini Electric Resolute	141	113	20.2%
Genesis GV60 Premium	321	251	21.8%
BMW i4 eDrive40 M Sport (Pro Pack)	340	261	23.4%
Jaguar I-Pace EV400	261	197	24.6%
Volkswagen ID Buzz Style	255	192	24.8%
MG 4 Long Range Trophy	270	196	27.6%
Cupra Born 58kWh V3	255	182	28.7%
Renault Megane E-Tech Techno	270	189	29.9%
Renault Megane E-Tech Equilibre	275	187	32.1%
Ora Funky Cat First Edition	193	130	32.8%

What Car? previously analysed three of the cars on the same test route and to the same criteria at the height of summer (in July).

These were the Cupra Born, BMW i4 and Tesla Model 3. The only notable difference in car specification was the BMW running on 20-inch wheels in What Car?’s winter test rather than 19-inch units in the summer test.

In the winter test, the average range achieved by the trio was 18% lower than in summer, with the BMW faring worst (261 miles vs 317, a fall of 21.6%) and the Tesla doing best (272 miles vs 304, a fall of 11.8%).

The Cupra covered 182 miles, against 219 in summer, a fall of 20.6%.

Real Range test – winter vs summer

Car	Winter range (miles)	Summer range (miles)	Shortfall
Tesla Model Y Long Range	272	304	11.8%
Cupra Born 58kWh V3	182	219	20.6%
BMW i4 eDrive40 M-Sport Pro Pack	261	317	21.6%

“The car makers are obliged to quote the official range figures, because they are set to a criteria laid out by European legislators,” said Nightingale. “However, we believe that our testing is far more indicative of what a typical British driver is likely to achieve, and therefore gives car buyers a better understanding before they make the switch to electric.

“Despite falling short of their official figures, it’s still clear that many of these electric cars have the advantage of being cheaper to run than petrol or diesel equivalents assuming you can charge at home – even with the price of electricity so high at the moment.

“The most efficient, the Mini Electric, cost just 8.7p per mile to fuel. The most efficient petrol car we’ve ever tested, a Toyota Yaris, costs 11.2p a mile at today’s prices.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

40 years ago, seatbelts became a legal requirement for front seat occupants – a change that heralded in a new era of road safety.

Backed up by the memorable ‘clunk, click, every trip’ motto, the introduction of seatbelts was the single biggest contribution to safety on our roads.

Fast forward to today and their impact is still felt, but seatbelts are no longer the only innovation keeping us safe.

Today’s vehicles feature a mind-boggling array of acronyms for devices and sensors which do what they can to mitigate the severity of accidents.

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are a suite of technological innovations that feed into our vehicles, from cruise control and automatic emergency braking to self-parking systems and intelligent speed adaptation.

But whereas the simplicity of the ‘clunk click’ slogan, and the easily understandable benefit of seat belts, was integral to improving safety by engaging with drivers and helping get the message across it is the sheer breadth of the systems available, and a lack of clarity around how they work, which causes not only confusion among drivers, but also mistrust too.

Red Corporate Driver Training carried out some exclusive research among 1,000 drivers to seek their opinions on ADAS, and it revealed a huge gulf in knowledge about these systems. We have to find a way to change this.

While 86% had heard of reversing and parking sensors, features such as a driver monitor system (ensuring the driver is alert) and intelligent speed adaptation (linking to traffic signs) only scored 40% and 34% awareness, respectively.

It’s a similar story when it comes to using these systems: 38% of respondents use reverse and parking sensors all the time, while a driver monitor system is used all the time by just 2.8% of drivers.

There are about as many reasons why drivers don’t use them as there are ADAS features. More than half (54%) of respondents say they don’t use them because ‘they like to be in control’, while 44% worry about becoming over-reliant on the technology.

There are other reasons. Cost is, of course, a barrier to some, with the price of buying a vehicle with ADAS fitted (and repairing it) a key consideration.

But most vehicles come fitted with many of these systems as standard now anyway.

The issue is mainly drivers’ lack of knowledge which impedes usage

Many don’t even realise it is in the vehicle, some are scared to try it on their own and others blame the vehicle manual for being too vague.

Others, simply, think they don’t need it, with ‘I feel I’m a great driver’ being a common response when asked about using ADAS.

This is where companies need to assess their approach.

After all, it is pointless to spend extra money on a fleet vehicle equipped with ADAS and then find the systems are not being used because of many of the reasons listed above.

When we asked the respondents what would encourage them to use ADAS, training was the first thing mentioned (either online, in-vehicle or in a classroom) by more than 50%.

This is a stark reminder that while technology improves at an inexorable rate, we mustn’t forget about the people who use it, and just assume that because a vehicle has systems fitted, somehow the issue has been magically solved.

Having the cleverest in-vehicle safety device ever invented is neither use nor ornament if it is not trusted or used by drivers. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News