The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Police in England, Wales and Scotland should be given new powers to set up vehicle checkpoints and randomly test drivers for the presence of drink and drugs.

 

That’s according to road safety charity Brake, which claims most drivers would support random drug and alcohol testing by the police.

 

The measure, it says, would help curb the increasing number of drink and drug driving-related crashes and deaths on the roads, and comes ahead of the festive season, which usually sees a spike in such incidents.

 

Recent figures estimate that the total number of deaths in crashes involving a drink driver went up 9% from 2016 to 2017 (from 230 to 250) with someone killed or injured in a drink drive related crash every hour, on average, in December.

 

Drug driving also appears to be on the increase, with the number of fatal and serious crashes with a contributory factor of the driver/rider impaired by illicit or medicinal drugs increasing by 8% over the same period, up from 447 to 484 incidents.

 

Furthermore, the number of drug-driving prosecutions almost doubled last year, with a record 10,215 cases in England and Wales, compared with 5,368 in 2017. Some 60,000 drivers failed roadside breath tests in 2016, according to Ministry of Justice data.

 

Fleet News reported in the summer how statistics released by some individual forces showed a worrying trend, with cannabis and cocaine now more prevalent than alcohol in roadside tests.

 

Data released by Suffolk Police, for example, shows that the number of arrests for drug-driving surpassed the number of drink-drive arrests for the first time in the county.

 

The 672 drug-driving arrests in 2018/19 represented a 20% increase on the previous 12 months, while drink-driving increased by 11.3% to 652 arrests.

 

Research shows that a visible police presence and the fear of being caught are effective in driving compliance with the law and so the charity believes that the introduction of random testing could have an immediate impact on the number of people driving impaired.

 

Joshua Harris, director of campaigns for Brake, said: “We need urgent action by the next Government to tackle this worrying trend and we call for new police powers to set up vehicle checkpoints to carry out random alcohol and drug tests on the roads.”

 

Brake asked 1,000 drivers if they would welcome random drug and alcohol testing by the police, as part of the charity’s road safety research programme with the insurer Direct Line. Seven in 10 drivers surveyed said that they would welcome random drug and alcohol testing by the police with only one in 10 disagreeing.

 

Harris said: “As our research shows, drivers fully support this move and international evidence suggests that random testing can have a positive impact.

 

“Drink and drug driving are a blight on our roads and drivers need to expect that if they break the law they will be caught and punished.”

 

Random breath testing is already in place in many other countries – including in Northern Ireland, where it was introduced in 2016 – and it has been found to be highly effective in reducing drink-drive casualties without over-burdening the police and criminal justice system.

 

However, at present the law in England, Wales and Scotland only permits the police to breathalyse someone, or carry out a roadside drug screening test if they think they’ve been drinking or on drugs, if they have committed a traffic offence, or if they have been involved in a traffic collision.

 

As well as supporting the introduction of random testing, Brake is advising everyone to be aware of the dangerous impact of drink and drugs on driving this festive season, and to adopt a zero tolerance approach to driving impaired.

 

Brake also advises that people attending Christmas parties plan ahead for their journey home, speak out if they see someone planning to drive impaired and think about the possible impact of alcohol the morning after a night of drinking.

 

Harris concluded: “It’s vital that drivers, and passengers, are aware of the dangers of drink and drug driving, especially ahead of the busy festive season.

 

“Whilst we want people to go out and enjoy themselves, drivers must know that getting behind the wheel after drinking can have potentially devastating consequences. Simply put, if you are drinking, don’t drive, and if you must drive, don’t drink.”

 

Survey results

I would welcome random alcohol and drug testing by the police	Total
Strongly agree	37%
Agree	35%
Neither agree nor disagree	16%
Disagree	7%
Strongly disagree	4%

 

By Graham Hill With Thanks To Fleet News

Bluelight driver training is under the spotlight after fatalities during police pursuits reached a 10-year high, according to the latest statistics from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

 

While many fleets embrace on-the-road and classroom training to improve employee skills behind the wheel, for bluelight drivers it is an essential and mandatory part of the job.

 

The latest IOPC report on deaths as a result of police contact show there were 42 road traffic fatalities, an increase of 13 on last year and the highest figure in the past decade.

 

Of those, 30 deaths were from police pursuit-related incidents, also an increase of 13 from last year.

 

There were also five fatalities resulting from emergency response incidents, but this was a decrease of three compared with last year. the balance of the deaths – seven – were attributed to “other police traffic activity”.

 

The IOPC statistics show the majority of those that died were young drivers, with 22 deaths between the ages of 18 and 30. It said part of the increase can be explained by a rise in occupants per vehicle, compared with last year.

 

The statistics are shown as a national picture and are not broken down by police force, so it is not possible to identify particular regions in the UK that have higher casualty rates as a result of police pursuits.

 

The number of days of driver training for a police response vehicle can range from four to eight weeks.

 

An officer has to retrain or attend a refresher course if they have not used their standard/response or advanced driver training within a 12-month period.

 

Phill Matthews, Police Federation of England and Wales’ lead on conduct and performance, said police last year carried out at least 13,000 pursuits and eight million response drives.

 

Matthews said: “Therefore, the IOPC figures represent a tiny proportion, with the majority of drives being safely completed; reflecting just how high the standard of police driver training is.

 

“Not to mention soaring crime figures and increasing road use which means the demand placed on our officers using their driving skills and training is peaking.”

 

He said forces, along with the College of Policing, will continue to deliver and develop training to continue to best protect the public.

 

New test for police drivers

 

The Government announced in May this year that it would be introducing a new legislative test to assess the standard of driving for police officers.

 

The new police driving legislation will compare the standard of driving for an officer against that of a “careful, competent and suitably trained police driver in the same role”, rather than use the existing test which compares driving against a standard qualified driver who would not normally be involved in police action.

 

Michael Lockwood, IOPC director, said: “The increase in pursuit-related deaths this year points to a continued need for ongoing scrutiny of this area of policing.

 

“Police drivers need to be able to pursue suspects and respond quickly to emergency calls as part of their duty, but it’s not without risk.

 

“This includes risks not only for the police and the driver of any pursued vehicle, but for passengers, bystanders and other road users. Pursued drivers bear responsibility for their own actions, but police officers should also take into account the risks to the public and only undertake a pursuit where it is safe to do so, and where authorised.”

 

Lockwood said police officers who are appropriately trained and skilled should be able to respond to an emergency without fear that they will face unfair consequences.

 

But he added that there needs to be a balance ensuring that any change to legislation does not have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety or undermine the ability to hold the police to account effectively.

 

The Government has also decided to make it clear that police officers should not be regarded as being accountable for the driving of a suspected criminal who is attempting to avoid arrest by driving in a dangerous manner, provided the pursuit is justified and proportionate.

 

It is also looking to review the existing emergency service exemptions to traffic law to ensure they remain fit for purpose.

 

In addition, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) is updating its guidance on “tactical contact” to differentiate the approach used on vehicles compared with motorcycle/moped pursuits.

 

Whenever there is a fatality or life-changing injury in relation to a road traffic incident (RTI), it is automatically referred to the IOPC, which conducts its own investigation.

 

This will include examining the vehicles involved, as well as interviewing the officers.

 

The IOPC is looking at training its own officers to the same standards as the police to help give them hands-on experience of techniques used during pursuits.

 

If there are suspected criminal charges against a police officer, these are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

 

If there are misconduct or gross misconduct concerns, these recommendations are then given to the respective police force.

 

Discipline for misconduct is handled by the individual police force and this can range from dismissal in cases of gross misconduct and repeated formal warnings, to driver retraining or advice on how they should follow the procedural police pursuit guidelines correctly.

 

The IOPC spokesman told Fleet News: “There is less than a handful of cases a year where police officers are charged with a criminal offence, or with misconduct or gross misconduct as a result of a fatality from an RTI.

 

“In the rare cases where this happens it’s usually because an officer continues a pursuit after they have been told to abandon, or if an officer carries out a pursuit when they have not had the correct training, or if an officer carries out a pursuit that has not had formal authorisation.”

 

The types of police driver training

 

The National Roads Policing and Police Driving Learning Programme (RPPDLP) sets out national learning standards for police driving.

 

There are three levels of police driver training that all officers have to take if they drive as part of their job – basic, standard/response and advanced.

 

In addition to these, there are also specialist police vehicles and roles that are set out in the RPPDLP.

 

Basic training is provided to all officers and staff with a full DVLA driving licence that have a need to drive official vehicles and is a one-day assessment.

 

Standard/response training is given to officers to allow them to respond safely to incidents requiring the use of legal exemptions, such as exceeding speed limits and running red lights, and takes two-to-four weeks to complete.

 

A standard/response driver is permitted to drive low to intermediate performance vehicles but is not expected to use unmarked police vehicles in a pursuit situation.

 

Advanced training clears officers to drive high performance vehicles operationally and is a further four-week course and assessment, in addition to the standard/response training.

 

The National Police Chiefs’ Council does not lead on training and so the NPCC deferred to the College of Policing to say what part it plays with driver training.

 

According to official College of Policing guidance, a police driver is deemed to be in pursuit when a driver/motorcyclist indicates they have no intention of stopping.

 

When a situation falls within the definition of a pursuit, officers need to decide whether a pursuit is justified, proportionate and conforms to the principle of least intrusion.

 

A spokesperson for the College of Policing said: “The police driver training strategy must always seek to promote public confidence in the way in which the police fleet is used.

 

“Where driving standards fall below the accepted principles it is incumbent on the force to identify, review and act proportionately in any post-collision investigation and/or intervention.”

 

The spokesperson said all driver training leads are expected to be cognisant of emerging police collision/incident reviews following internal investigations, court proceedings, coroner’s rulings, or recommendations made following IOPC reviews.

 

The college said: “It is important that police drivers are able to dynamically self-assess their actions and performance.

 

“This helps them to meet the changing circumstances and pressures they face in their decisions and actions, especially when driving to incidents, working extended hours or during pursuit situations.”

 

Safety lesson for all fleet operators

 

Lisa Dorn, associate professor of driver behaviour at Cranfield University and research director for DriverMetrics, recently contributed to a Brake report on engaging fleet managers on safety and training.

 

She said no matter what the profession, those driving for work can benefit from advanced driver training to influence safety and behaviour behind the wheel.

 

Bluelight drivers are under increased pressure while driving, but non-emergency fleets face one-in-three road deaths in the UK involving somebody who drives for work.

 

Dorn said: “Fleets should carry out an in-depth evaluation of driver training procedures to determine how effective their current training programmes are and whether they encourage positive or negative driver behaviour.”

 

IOPC investigations into RTIs

 

While the number of deaths related to police pursuits has increased, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) reiterated that the vast majority of these incidences were not related to police wrongdoing.

 

The IOPC (formerly the IPCC – Independent Police Complaints Commission) examined its data in relation to cases over a five-and-a-half-year period that had a road traffic incident factor.

 

Between April 1, 2012 and September 30, 2017, the IPCC received more than 1,600 RTI referrals.

 

The majority (68%) of them were returned for local investigation. A relatively small proportion, 251 (15%) were independently investigated and 97 were fully investigated.

 

The IOPC categorised these investigations using the same criteria as the IPCC statistics on annual deaths during or following police contact.

 

The table above sets out the number of independent investigations in which police officers were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the prosecutorial outcomes arising.

 

Following referral to the CPS, just two officers were prosecuted in relation to pursuits. No officers were convicted.

 

What fleets can learn from the bluelight approach to driver training

 

“While any number of road fatalities is too many, it is first important to note that the number of pursuit-related fatalities quoted in the IOPC report represents a very small proportion of police pursuits.

 

They should, of course, be viewed in the context of the high-risk scenarios encountered in law enforcement activity. By and large, I think the public have a high level of confidence in the effectiveness and safety of police officers in their driving, and accept that high-speed pursuit is often a necessary part of their duty.

 

Collisions occurring during police pursuits, especially those resulting in death or injury, always gain media attention, and police are keen to reassure the public that every care has been taken to minimise risk.

 

Acknowledgement of the IOPC data, along with analysis of the circumstances of each incident, is an important part of the ongoing development of police driver training, and they are to be applauded for taking this information on board when setting benchmarks for driving standards.

 

Clearly, police and other emergency service drivers are required to deal with pressures far beyond those experienced by the average motorist, but those responsible for fleets of civilian business drivers could, nevertheless, learn a thing or two from this approach to training development.

 

It is well publicised that around a third of UK road fatalities involves a driver on a work journey, and yet few employers stop to consider such statistics, or to truly analyse the pressures their own drivers are subjected to on a daily basis. That’s not to say that good intentions are not there. For example, the increasing adoption of telematics by business fleets is an indication that driver behaviour is an area of focus.

 

The emergency services were among the first largescale adopters of vehicle telematics, and the data it yields has proven invaluable in the analysis of the circumstances surrounding certain incidents, helping to prove responsibility.

 

Some businesses may be motivated to adopt telematics in the belief that drivers’ behaviour will improve if they know they are being monitored. However, as is the case with speeding or mobile phone use by drivers, unless penalties or interventions are actually enforced, drivers succumb to complacency and fail to improve.

 

More crucially, telematics data produces an audit trail which could lead to serious consequences for an employer that had access to information about a driver’s history of risky behaviour, but failed to intervene.

 

In our experience at IAM RoadSmart, many businesses do not acknowledge the potential for this kind of accountability, lack the ability to interpret telematics data correctly, or are unaware of the highly effective training interventions that are available for business drivers.

 

Assessment of driver risk, ongoing evaluation of training procedures and development of robust fleet policies are all essential in maximising safety and, with the growing numbers of business drivers, Government policymakers are increasingly acknowledging the role that employers must play in the wider picture of UK road safety. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

If you’re in search of an SUV type vehicle, then a decision has to be made – Do you need two-wheel drive or all-wheel drive?

 

The short answer to this question is as simple as it gets – if you have the luxury to think about 2WD and AWD, realistically, you do not need an AWD system. At all. AWD is one of those things that when you need it, you just know you need it, and you know why you need it.

 

You would not be thinking of 2WD in the first place. Nevertheless, manufacturers seem to throw a lot of money into promoting AWD systems for their SUVs. This has become a feature that translated from something one may consider a driving aid to a mere entry on an options list you could mark. With the help of various reports from the UK and US I will list five things to think about before opting for AWD.

 

Do you need AWD?

 

It all comes down to a simple question of need. If you live in a mostly dry area with no or very soft winters and do not actually use your car for off-roading, honestly, an AWD system would be close to throwing money down the drain. It is that simple.

 

Consider this – if you used a 2WD car previously without any major problems with traction, and you do not intend to change your driving style, then a 2WD SUV will do the job exactly as your old 2WD car did.

 

But why am I saying this? Isn’t an all-wheel-drive system a preferable solution over a 2WD system regardless of your needs? No! It’s not.

 

Reason 1. AWD Is More Expensive Than 2WD

Have you ever read through the new car for sale or used car for sale listings or my lease deal listings? If you did, you might have noticed that cars with AWD are usually more expensive compared with 2WD machines.

 

According to various sources, the difference between 2WD and AWD versions of the same car ranges from £1,500 to £4,000. When talking about unibody SUVs, which are all the rage today, that difference is usually between £1500 and £2500. Either way, you will have to pay more for something you may never use.

 

AWD systems employed by manufacturers for use on SUVs, cars, or MPVs, aren’t the same as the 4WD systems used by proper off-road vehicles. Most of the time they are part-time systems with torque being sent to the normally-neutral axle only when a loss of traction is felt. Most systems are also front-wheel biased, leaving you with a FWD (Front Wheel Drive) vehicle most of the time.

 

Reason 2. AWD Does Not Have To Work All Of The Time

 

Usually, what you get for a couple of thousand pounds more is the so-called, on-demand AWD system which actually serves as a two-wheel-drive system 99.9 percent of the time.

 

According to some Australian and European researchers, 0.1 percent of the time is exactly how long AWD capability will be engaged. Think about it this way – if you cover 10,000 miles, the AWD system which powers all four wheels will be engaged for ten miles.

 

And, this is not because the on-demand AWD systems aren’t good, but because you actually do not have any use for them. Follow this analogy with your hypothetical previous 2WD car, and you can see that an additional AWD system may be just an unnecessary added cost for you. You drove that 2WD car everywhere, didn’t you?

 

Now, it is true that AWD systems do provide better traction in slippery conditions. Usually, they work something like this – when a computer senses slipping of the wheels that usually power the car, the AWD drive kicks in (via viscous coupling, transfer case, added differential, or some other means) and sends some torque to the other pair of wheels in hopes that they have more traction.

 

If they do, they push the car out, and the AWD disengages. That can last for a second, or for prolonged periods of time. After that, it is back to your usual 2WD business. This all sounds perfectly rational, but considering that a majority of cars on the roads are actually 2WD units, and they go about their business without any problems, I think that an AWD option may not be as necessary as some would like to believe.

 

Reason 3. AWD Doesn’t Improve Your Braking.

 

Right off the bat, AWD systems are created to use all potentially available traction when slippage of the wheels under power is detected. Thus, they transfer some (or all) of the power to the other set of wheels via the driveline components.

 

Newer systems, with smarter electronic control units and torque distribution hardware, can, in fact, affect handling in certain conditions. They do it by sending power to the wheels with more traction, but usually, with AWD systems available for some SUVs, these options are limited.

 

The most common question seems to be about braking. Under false assumptions, some consider AWD vehicles to be more in control under heavy braking. This is simply not the case, as the AWD system does not have anything to do with braking or slowing down.

 

As stated before, in normal conditions, cars with AWD systems are actually just 2WD vehicles that have the capability to engage the drive on the other axle if needed. Heavy braking, or any braking for that matter, does not have anything to do with it.

 

So while AWD may increase safety for cars travelling on slippery roads (mud, snow, ice, etc.), it’s basically a completely unnecessary addition if you rarely traverse slippery conditions.

 

Reason 4. Higher Fuel Consumption

 

Adding an AWD system to the vehicle unequivocally increases its weight. Depending on the system, the car has to gain a transfer case, axles for the second pair of wheels, a new differential, and a plenty of supporting gear. All of this adds weight (75kg+ on average,) which is a killer for fuel consumption.

 

According to a research, the fuel penalty for owning an AWD car instead of a 2WD car is between 1 and 2 mpg (and that is for on-demand electronically controlled AWD systems.) It’s not a lot, is it? Well, with one 15 gallon tank of fuel, you’d cover 30 miles less.

 

It all adds up.

 

Reason 5. Higher Maintenance Costs

 

Years ago when electric windows were an option my dad refused to have a car with electric windows on the basis that it was just another thing to go wrong.

 

Using the same theory, adding an AWD system adds yet another complexity to a car. A complexity that one has to maintain. Although modern systems do not need constant maintenance, any damage done to the AWD system is met with the most expensive repair bill.

 

Furthermore, AWD cars, due to their weight, and consequently more load on the brakes, do tend to wear the tyres down a bit faster than 2WD cars. Yet, it must be said that with the newest AWD systems (like 4Motion from Volkswagen, or Active Drive systems by Jeep) aren’t as hard on the components as some older systems.

 

Making the most out of a 2WD Car

 

So, instead of spending extra cash on an AWD system, you can do a thing or two to improve the 2WD system of an SUV. Installing high-end tyres definitely is the most important step when it comes to improving 2WD SUV traction.

 

Michelin actually tested a 2WD car on winter tyres and an AWD car on summer tyres travelling over slippery conditions, and it was obvious that the 2WD car with winter tyres achieved dramatically better results.

 

This only proves that 2WD will be more than enough in most cases. Apart from that, the traction control systems on newer vehicles are optimized to use as much traction the two wheels can provide. Braking one wheel thus transferring the power to the other has become a sort of a norm. Couple this with good tyres and you probably won’t need AWD anywhere that has relatively mild weather.

 

As always, choose your car according to your needs. Buying an AWD SUV in areas with light snow, occasional rain, and mostly straight roads does not have any justification. On the opposite side, if you suffer with heavy snow and ice, heavy rain and windy, hilly roads then AWD is probably preferable.

 

I hope this helps but these are just mine and a few journalist views. If you are seriously thinking of an SUV type vehicle but unsure about 2WD, FWD, AWD or 4WD seek the advice of the dealer and carry out your own research to make sure that the car truly fits your needs.

 

Oh and as one commentator said, SUV’s with whatever drive are not amphibious vehicles so don’t assume that you can drive through deep water without a thought! They are just as likely to break down or leak as any other car. By Graham Hill

The car insurance industry is working with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to close database gaps that allow written-offs cars to pass history checks with a clean bill of health.

 

In March this year, we discovered that the crash-damaged history of a number of cars sold at salvage auction as Cat S and Cat N write-offs was not being detected by provenance checks run by HPI and Experian.

 

Now the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) says it is working with the DVLA, which holds a more comprehensive database of write-offs, to tackle this issue. The MIB admits it didn’t know the true scale of the problem – which affects tens of thousands of vehicles a year – until Auto Express highlighted the problem.

 

The issue relates to a database called the Motor Insurance Anti Fraud and Theft Register (MIAFTR), which is run by the MIB. It’s used by HPI and Experian to determine if a car has been written off.

 

During the 2016/17 and 2017/18 financial years, however, 168,000 fewer written-off vehicles were put on MIAFTR compared with the DVLA’s database of repairable write-offs. It is unlikely these vehicles, if put back on the road, would be detected as such by provenance checks.

 

“We knew there were gaps. But no, we didn’t understand the true scale of it”, Ben Fletcher, the MIB’s chief customer officer, told Auto Express. “Since the article ran, and as part of our general work, we have engaged with the DVLA and we are actively talking to them about what the size of the gap is between the two [databases], and is there an opportunity to close that gap by sharing information?” He said discussions with the DVLA are in “early stages” but have been ongoing “for the last couple of months”.

 

Fletcher explained that MIAFTR “was set up a long time ago by insurers… to share information about the history of the cars they were insuring. At some part in its history… the likes of HPI and Experian said ‘Can we have access to this data? Because this data is one part of a component that will help for our vehicle provenance checks’: It’s being used to help provide a product, but MIAFTR was never designed to be a definitive register of every vehicle which has been damaged beyond repair.”

 

The MIB confirmed HPI and Experian are the only two provenance companies with access to MIAFTR, with other history-checkers using data provided by these two firms.

 

Fletcher added: “The people providing the vehicle provenance checks understand the issues. They provide guarantees in the circumstances where there is a problem.”

 

How do these gaps appear?

 

There are a number of reasons for vehicles not to be on MIAFTR. Cars with third-party cover that aren’t declared ‘total losses’ can be missing, as can cars written off using paper records. The MIB also says fleet operators with large excesses may buy a new car rather than claim a total loss; these cars can also be missing. If such a vehicle is subsequently repaired, provenance checks may not detect its true history.

 

What do the other organisations say?

DVLA: It confirmed discussions with the MIB over these issues. We asked why the organisation can’t simply open its write-off database to third-party companies like HPI and Experian, given that private parking firms can access other DVLA datasets. The organisation simply said there are “no plans” to do this.

 

HPI: It “works tirelessly to improve the coverage and accuracy of its data and is carrying out increasingly more checks year on year, and as such is identifying a growing number of vehicles hitting the register as write-offs”. The firm highlighted that buyers are protected by a guarantee of up to £30,000 if it supplies inaccurate or incomplete information; however, this guarantee is capped at £15,000 if it’s discovered that a vehicle has been written-off.

 

Experian: Its position on the subject hasn’t changed since March, when the firm said it “will continue to work with our data and insurance industry partners” to “establish the circumstances” behind the vehicles highlighted in our article.

 

Crashed cars written-off by insurers are being repaired and sold to unsuspecting motorists

Cars that have been deemed insurance write-offs following serious accidents are passing vehicle history checks with a clean bill of health and being sold to unsuspecting motorists, Auto Express can exclusively reveal.

 

Vehicle history checks are relied on by countless buyers every year to reveal whether a car is subject to outstanding finance, has mileage irregularities, has been stolen, has previously been scrapped or has been deemed an insurance write-off.

 

But the damaged cars you see in these photographs were sold at a salvage auction, having been classified as ‘Cat S’ – meaning they were written off after sustaining serious, structural accident damage, and were only allowed back on the road after having been properly repaired.

 

Despite this, all of these models passed the vehicle history checks offered by both HPI and Experian AutoCheck, and were being marketed to consumers as never having been written off.

 

We found 10 cars that had been sold at a salvage auction as declared Cat S write-offs, making a note of the VIN plates displayed in the salvage listings. We paid for HPI and Experian AutoCheck history checks, cross-referencing VINs and registration plates with the reports. Some of the cars generated alerts for outstanding finance or mileage discrepancies, but not one check from either HPI or Experian flagged any of these cars as an insurance write-off.

 

Auto Express was alerted to this issue by a reader who uncovered inconsistencies with history-checking companies after buying a used car he discovered had previously been sold via a salvage auction. As well as a conventional history check, the reader used a company called www.vcheck.uk, which crosschecks a car’s write-off status against salvage auction records.

 

After we learned of this problem, we contacted vcheck and were provided with a number of cars that had raised similar concerns.

 

By Graham Hill thanks to Auto Express

A class action representing more than 90,000 UK Volkswagen owners will aim to determine whether its emissions-reducing defeat device software was designed to defeat clean air laws.

 

The Volkswagen Group is denying that the software it used was an illegal defeat device but a preliminary High Court hearing will today (December 2) focus on whether software fitted to 1.2 million vehicles was designed to cheat clean air laws in the UK.

 

If the biggest class action of its kind in the UK is successful in the two-week preliminary hearing starting today, a full trial is expected to take place in 2020.

 

A spokesman for Slater Gordon, which is representing the majority of the UK customers, said that Mr Justice Waksman will be asked to rule on whether the software installed in the cars was a ‘defeat device’ under EU regulations.

 

He will also be asked to determine whether the High Court is bound by The German Federal Motor Transport Authority’s finding that the software installed by VW was a defeat device.

 

VW admitted to manipulating 11 million vehicles worldwide to fool emissions tests back in September 2015.

 

In the US the OEM paid out $4.3 billion in civil and criminal penalties after pleading guilty to criminal charges and total costs for VW are estimated to have reached $21bn.

 

VW will also pay between $87m and $127m in compensation to customers in Australia, despite having made no admission of liability.

 

The OEM maintains that its engine software did not breach the law and said in a statement that “there has never been a defeat device installed in any of its vehicles in the UK”.

 

Commenting on the proceedings at the High Court this week, a Volkswagen spokesman said: “The purpose of the hearing is to determine two specific questions of law, namely whether the English & Welsh High Court is bound by the findings of the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) or the British Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA), and whether the legal definition under Article 3 (10) of Regulation 717/2007/EC of a defeat device is met if certain factors are fulfilled. Volkswagen says the answer to both questions is no.”

 

He added: “Volkswagen Group continues to defend robustly its position in the High Court in London. It remains Volkswagen Group’s case that the claimants did not suffer any loss at all and that the affected vehicles did not contain a prohibited defeat device. The decision today does not affect any questions of liability or loss.”

 

Quoted in The Guardian newspaper, Gareth Pope, head of group litigation at Slater Gordon, said: “VW has had plenty of opportunity to come clean, make amends and move on from this highly damaging episode.

 

“But instead it’s chosen to spend millions of pounds denying the claims our clients have been forced to bring against it rather than paying that to their own customers in compensation.”

 

Back in September the Volkswagen Group branded allegations that chief executive Herbert Deiss and chairman Dieter Poetsch were guilty of market manipulation in connection to the dieselgate scandal as “groundless”.

 

The German carmaker’s senior executives were formally charged with market manipulation in Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Germany, on September 24, over allegations that they intentionally failed to inform investors early enough about the diesel emissions scandal.

 

Former Group chief executive Martin Winterkorn was also charged. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

Providers and policymakers are being warned that a fragmented charge point network is slowing the take-up of electric vehicles (EVs).

 

There are currently 28,000-plus charge points in the UK and 15 major network providers, said Zap-Map.

 

Fleet body ACFO said the accessibility of charge points is a concern for drivers, as they consider whether to choose a plug-in company car.

 

ACFO chair Caroline Sandall said: “Electric vehicle ‘charge point anxiety’ is replacing ‘range anxiety’ as the big issue for drivers.”

 

Carmakers’ enhancements to batteries, she says, have improved the range of EVs so significantly that drivers’ fears of running out of charge, before reaching their destination, are quickly being eroded.

 

However, she warned: “Range anxiety is now being replaced by charge point anxiety due to a number of concerns, including different vehicles requiring different connectors to enable charging to take place; and no standard payment system across all charge point providers.”

 

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Electric Vehicles has urged large public charge point operators to make their units interoperable.

 

In a letter to operators last month, it said the “fragmented” system for charge point transactions, involving multiple cards, apps and accounts, is “putting off” fleet operators from adopting EVs.

 

It says there is now an urgent need for industry-led collaboration to simplify this experience.

 

Even the most evangelical of EV advocates recognises that this is a major stumbling block.

 

Simon King, procurement director at Mitie, which has pledged to convert 20% of its car and small van fleet to EV by the end of 2020, said: “I’ve got between 10 and 15 apps for different charge point providers on my phone; a driver in a diesel van will have an Allstar card they can use at pretty much any filling station. That’s our biggest issue.”

 

And Catherine Hutt, innovation lead at Addison Lee, said: “Charging has been an issue for our drivers. The day I had to say ‘you are going to have to download about six different apps’, my heart sank. We cannot let this carry on – it’s not sustainable.”

 

A group of charge point providers has signed a roaming agreement to open up networks for EV drivers in the UK by the end of 2019.

 

Allego, Charge4Europe, Chargemap, ChargePoint, Engenie, EVBox, Franklin Energy, NewMotion and Travelcard will only require a single subscription to access any of their public charging stations.

 

They have also agreed to share charging station information so EV drivers can see where and if a charge point is available and what a charging session will cost them.

 

Matt Western, chair of the all-party parliamentary group, said: “This announcement from the collaborating parties in e-mobility is absolutely a step in the right direction.”

 

The agreement struck between the charge point operators is based on the Open Charge Point Interface, a standardised and open-source protocol commonly used in Europe.

 

The all-party parliamentary group says interoperability agreements in markets such as the Netherlands, France and Germany have helped fuel the switch to EVs.

 

Sytse Zuidema, CEO of New-Motion, says its wider experience in Europe also shows that making charging more “accessible and easy helps encourage EV adoption”.

 

The Government announced in the summer that it wanted all new EV rapid charge points to allow debit or credit card payments by spring 2020.

 

BP Chargemaster supported the move and said its Polar network will offer contactless bank or credit card payments on all new 50kW and 150kW ultra-fast chargers. It will also retrofit all existing 50kW Ultracharge units.

 

“Rapid chargers are contactless tap and pay – you turn up and get your bank card out,” said Tom Callow, BP director of communication and strategy.

 

Customers have always been able to access the Polar network, which operates 7,000 charge points in the UK, on a pay-as-you-go basis or via a subscription (membership).

 

Polar subscribers pay a monthly fee of £7.85 and, in turn, have cheaper charging rates.

 

Sandall says “total uniformity” is required in terms of payment and type of plug/charging point.

 

“Charge point providers and motor manufacturers need to unite in terms of the type of system and there needs to be complete uniformity in terms of payment – one card, one system,” she said. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

It’s fair to say that the idea of switching to winter tyres hasn’t caught on in the UK to the extent that tyre manufacturers had hoped. But increasing the grip at the tyre contact patch is the best way to maintain the best possible traction and steering on slippery or what engineers call a ‘low-mu’ surface. (The Greek letter µ, pronounced mu, represents the coefficient of friction.)

 

It might seem that four-wheel drive is a better idea, but it isn’t necessarily. A 4×4 will make the most of the traction available from the four contact patches. It may also help prevent the balance of the car being upset by a clumsy driver stabbing at the throttle.

 

But if there’s no grip available, the tyres still can’t gain forward traction, stop the car sliding anywhere it wants, or stop it quickly enough under braking, if at all. Four-wheel drive alone can’t prevent any of those things happening and the only thing that can is the grip of the tyres on the road.

 

In snow, there’s something else to consider: the width of the rubber. Watch any rally video of cars competing in snow and they all have one thing in common: skinny tyres. In snow, whatever the type of tyre, it will get more grip if it can bite down into the surface. Wide tyres, while good for cornering grip in the dry, are likely to fare worse in the snow.

 

You can probably see where this is heading. A small, front-wheel-drive hatchback with 185-section winter tyres will be more effective in snow than a big 4×4 SUV on fat summer tyres. The winter tyres grip better in snow because they’re designed to, the weight of the engine is directly over the driven wheels even if there are only two, and the tyres are skinny.

 

It’s not just about snow. Winter tyres have a softer compound that keeps the tread soft and supple in low temperatures, giving more grip on cold, damp or wet Tarmac at anything below 7deg C. That’s due to the chemistry of the compound and the fact that it contains more natural rubber than a summer tyre. Some high-end performance tyres don’t contain any natural rubber at all and can deteriorate and crack over time in extreme low temperatures.

 

The solid centre band on a high-performance summer tyre designed to give sharp steering response is missing on a winter tyre and there are normally fewer grooves around the circumference than on a summer tyre – depending on the make. However, there are a lot more of those tiny slits in the tread, called sipes. They create more sharp edges to grip the surface as the blocks they define deform in use. In snowy conditions, they also trap the snow, which grips better than wet rubber.

 

The downside of a winter tyre is that wider fitments especially are likely to be noisier than a summer equivalent, the rolling resistance is higher and the steering response and handling of a performance car in the dry won’t be as good. On a family car with modest performance, though, there’s no reason not to leave them on all year round, dodging the cost and hassle of two sets of tyres and giving much more safety and convenience in the worst winter weather.

 

The pressure to perform

 

Why does fuel consumption rise if tyres are not inflated properly? Hysteresis. As the tyre rotates and meets the road surface, it deforms, consuming energy. As it turns away from the surface, elasticity returns it to its original shape, but not all of the energy is recovered and the rest is lost as heat. By Graham Hill Thanks To Autocar Magazine.

As leasing companies and manufacturers try to increase take up of all EV’s the bigger premium cars are suffering massive drops when used according to a report by Fleet News. The question is how can it be addressed?

 

Residual values for used electric vehicles (EVs) are progressing at different rates with prices for cheaper models strengthening in the last 24 months.

 

Values for models under £17,000 at one year and 10,000 miles have seen an uplift while those for premium EVs are weaker.

 

Data from Cap HPI shows that models including the Citroen C-Zero and Peugeot iON have seen residual values improve in the last two years. In November 2017, a one-year-old and 10,000 mile Citroen C-Zero was worth around £6,000 and today a similar example is valued at more than £11,000.

 

Premium EVs remain a challenge due to the high cost new, which translates to the vehicle looking expensive when entering the used market. Models such as Jaguar I-Pace, Audi E-Tron and Tesla Model X have all seen values reduce in the past few months.

 

Chris Plumb, senior valuations editor at Cap HPI, said: “It’s clear that there is a growing market for a used BEV at a particular price point perhaps for use as a second car for city commutes. We expect to see demand continue to increase as clean air zones are rolled out across the country and the range of product widens.

 

“The premium models represent a different proposition, often with longer ranges and more features, the high purchase price at new is yet to translate in the used sector.”

 

A BMW i8 coupe is worth around £20,000 less at one year old and 10,000 miles than it was two years ago. Equally the Jaguar iPace has seen values drop by around £10,000 in the last 12 months.

 

As volumes of EVs increase in the market some mainstream models have seen pressure and values drop. The VW eGolf and Nissan Leaf have seen values decline following an increase in volumes of two-year-old product, in particular, models with a smaller battery.

 

“Over time, used values have stabilised and now perform against the same market pressures as their petrol counterparts,” Plumb said.

 

“As supply and demand shift we see pressure on some models and, in some cases, values appreciate on others. We expect dozens of new models in 2020 and it will only bring more choice to the used buyer.”

Company car drivers and fleet managers are being warned that criminals are using WhatsApp groups to plan and execute car thefts, according to vehicle protection specialists at AX.

 

According to the report, criminals create and share ‘shopping lists’ of makes and models so that vehicles can be stolen to order. AX, a provider of intelligent vehicle protection and management technologies for the automotive and insurance industries, says that “fuelled by encrypted social media platforms, the wave of thefts has been intensified by the vulnerability of ‘keyless’ systems which criminals are able to exploit using key signal amplifiers and decoders costing thousands”.

 

Home Office figures show the number of vehicles stolen in Britain has almost doubled in the last five years. In 2017-18, nearly 112,000 cars were taken illegally, up from 75,308 in the 2013-14 financial year.

 

Neil Thomas, AX director of investigative services, said: “The highly organised criminal networks are constantly looking for more secure ways to carry on their ‘businesses’ online and use social media with encrypted messaging capabilities or even online games to covertly communicate with each other.

 

“The sheer volume of thefts is practically a car theft epidemic and is enabling criminals to purchase costly technology which then fuels even more car crime.

 

“The thieves who take the initial risk get the cash payment, then the buyer, who now has a tracker-free car can then take their time to strip it, clone it or export it. This is where the profit is, especially in terms of the parts which can amount to much more than the complete vehicle.”

 

AX states that typically, criminals – or whole gangs in some cases – mobilise on social media where they agree their preferred targets, pricing and buyer before preparing bogus number-plates from similar vehicles to rapidly clone vehicles. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News.

Roadside pollution can be cut in half by a hedge, a new study from the University of Surrey suggests.

 

Experts from Surrey’s Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE) conducted a five-month experiment, measuring traffic pollutants behind and in front of a hedge that shielded a children’s park in Guildford, United Kingdom.

 

They reported reductions of more than 50% in particulate matter in late April, when the hedge came into leaf. This could be because the density of the hedge or the stickiness of the leaves had a sizable impact on particle pollutants passing through it.

 

However, the results also revealed smaller reductions for gaseous pollutants including carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, and that wind direction had little impact on the concentration levels.

 

Professor Prashant Kumar, founding director of GCARE at the University of Surrey, believes it is the first study to look at how a hedge affects the pollution from traffic – assessing the influence of the vegetation lifecycle, wind direction and other variables.

 

“The reduction in pollution after the ‘green-up’ stage gives valuable information regarding where to install green infrastructure across our communities,” he said.

 

“This study has not only produced unique evidence and support for our advocacy to install hedges and other forms of green infrastructure along busy roadsides to protect schools, playgrounds and pedestrians/cyclists from air pollution exposure; it has also provided a clear indication that evergreen species should be favoured for barriers against air pollution to exploit their year-round performance.”

 

GCARE at the University of Surrey has a long history of research in this area, conducting its first piece of research in 2014. It assessed the potential of roadside vegetation to reduce exposure to ultrafine particles; a study that was subsequently expanded to investigate larger-sized fine and coarse particles along busy roadsides.

 

Kumar said: “This journey continued with assessments of the relative potential of trees, hedges, green roofs and walls in city environments and proposed modelling methods for evaluating the impact of green infrastructure. Most recently, our research has highlighted the nexus between green infrastructure, air pollution and human health.”

 

It has also released guidance on the implementation of ‘green infrastructure’ to cut for air pollution.

 

“What was missing from earlier work was an understanding of how the vegetation cycle of roadside hedges influences their capacity for air pollution mitigation,” continued Kumar. “This required long-term measurements to capture various phases, including dormancy, leaf emergence and maturity.”

 

The research – The influence of the vegetation cycle on the mitigation of air pollution by a deciduous roadside hedge – was carried out under the umbrella of the iSCAPE (Improving Smart Control of Air Pollution in Europe) project, which is funded by the European Community’s H2020 Programme. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News