Headlight Glare Is Getting Worse According To The RAC

Wednesday, 12. June 2019

Fleet News reported on the following that I found interesting so I thought I would pass on, especially as I was nearly blinded last night when driving to Tesco in the rain last night. It’s incredible to think that headlamp regulations haven’t been changed since the 1960’s. Think we need an update!

 

The problem of glare – caused a headlight’s beam having a dazzling effect for oncoming traffic – is getting worse, research from the RAC suggests.

 

Nine in 10 drivers said ‘some’ or ‘most’ car headlights are too bright and 54% of these said they are dazzled more regularly now than a year ago.

 

When asked how they are affected by glare, six in 10 of those affected said they regularly get dazzled by oncoming headlights even though they are dipped, with a similar proportion (60%) being unable to tell if headlights are either dipped or on full beam.

 

Almost half (45%) also complained that they get dazzled by headlights in their rear-view mirror, while 70% believe some lights are so bright they represent an accident risk.

 

In fact, official Government data shows there are around 300 collisions every year where dazzling headlights are a factor.

 

Drivers were less clear on the likely causes of glare, however. Half (51%) blamed vehicles that sit higher on the road, such as increasingly popular sports utility vehicles (SUVs), for dazzling them although 41% said the problem was not caused by any particular type of vehicle.

 

Similarly, when it comes to lighting technologies, 55% believe ‘bluer’ xenon or the most modern LED headlights are to blame, but a similar number (51%) are not sure or cannot tell the difference between the types of lights.

 

The research also found that in some cases drivers themselves might be inadvertently causing glare – either by not adjusting their lights correctly, or by having badly-aligned lights. Almost half (47%) of drivers either never adjust their car headlights up or down when carrying different loads, or don’t do it regularly enough – something that is important in avoiding causing other people to suffer from glare as the aim of the headlight beam is affected by the load in the vehicle.

 

A quarter of drivers (26%) meanwhile have suspected problems with a misaligned headlight, with 9% of this group either trying to sort the problem out themselves or ignoring it altogether – all of these scenarios are likely to lead to a dazzling effect that could cause other road users discomfort.

 

RAC spokesperson Rod Dennis said: “The dazzling effect of another driver’s headlights isn’t just uncomfortable – in some cases it can be nothing short of dangerous, making us lose sight of the road for a short time. So it’s concerning to see that a greater proportion of drivers have reported problems with glare this year than last year.

 

“Among some drivers there is a perception that newer headlights cause more glare. But while a sizeable proportion claim it is the xenon headlights more often found in higher-end vehicles that are primarily to blame, a greater proportion either don’t know the difference between lights or aren’t sure.

 

“In reality, the issue of glare is a complex one and it’s not as straightforward as saying one type of lightbulb causes more of a dazzling effect than another – there are a range of reasons why a driver might be dazzled, from a slight misalignment of a headlight, the difference in ride height of different vehicles and even individual people’s vision. That explains why not every car headlight appears to be dazzling, with eight-in-10 drivers saying only some cause glare.”

 

Headlamp aim forms part of a vehicle’s MOT, and the requirements on garages to conduct this part of the test thoroughly were strengthened in 2016.

 

However, figures obtained by the RAC from the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) show that of the 26.5m MOT tests completed in 2018 for Class 4 vehicles (which includes cars) over three years of age, 6% still failed as result of problems with headlamp aim, the equivalent of nearly 1.6m vehicles.

 

In 2016, the agency also stated that “headlamp aim consistently tops the MOT compliance survey as one of the most likely items to be assessed incorrectly by testers”.

 

Dennis said: “All headlights have to meet specific international standards, which motorists might be surprised to discover haven’t been updated since the 1960s and so do not take specific account of newer technologies like xenon and LED. And an overwhelmingly proportion of drivers – 84% – now want the UK Government to act to ensure the regulations are updated to remove the possibility of glare being a result of modern technology.”

 

I find I get dazzled regularly – what can I do?

 

  • Talk to your optician. If you wear glasses, a coating can be added that can go some way towards making it easier to see when you are faced with car headlights. A quarter (25%) of respondents to the RAC survey wear such glasses.

 

  • Adjust your rear-view mirror more often. Unless your car has a self-dimming rear-view mirror, you can reduce glare from vehicles behind you by doing this – more than half (56%) of drivers who responded to the survey say they do this.

By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

FCA To Investigate Car Insurance Loyalty Pricing Scandal

Wednesday, 12. June 2019

Following a ‘super complaint’ to the Competitions and Markets Authority by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) the FCA announced at the end of last year that it was instigating an investigation into the way that car and home insurance was being sold.

 

Citizen’s Advice alleges that ‘Loyalty Pricing’ is rife throughout insurance, mortgage, savings and telecoms industries. The process gives customers the impression that they are receiving preferential rates when in fact they are conning us out of £4.1 billion every year according to the CAB.

 

We’ve probably all been there, I know I was taken in with the wording of my car insurance renewal letter many years ago, something along the lines of ‘Thank you for being a loyal customer, as a result of which we can offer you the special loyalty rate of £xx for the next 12 months. You don’t have to do anything if you wish to continue with us blah blah blah’.

 

There I was thinking I had a good rate until I tested the market and found that I could save £300 a year – the crooks! And don’t get me started on ‘Loyalty’ phone upgrades! So I for one am all in favour of the FCA investigation. The FCA has already said that it understands the conflict between consumers’ perception of what Loyalty means and the truth – they will be addressing the situation.

 

Reading the various reports it is far worse than I thought. It would seem that insurance companies assess the likelihood that you will shop around before giving you the new quote. This can see some subjected to ‘price discrimination’, whereby they are charged more than other customers who present the same risk to insurers, and cost no more to provide cover for.

 

The FCA said it has ‘Concerns that these pricing practices can potentially disadvantage some consumers significantly, in particular, the most vulnerable and least resilient customers’. It seems that older drivers and those with disabilities are less likely to shop around relying on the term ‘Loyalty’ to suggest that they are being treated fairly.

 

I await the results of the investigation with interest. By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

Should Safety Recalls Be Backed Up With Fines?

Wednesday, 12. June 2019

For years I’ve been concerned about safety recalls and the fact that some drivers tend to ignore them putting themselves, their passengers and other road users in danger. I’m not talking about a bit of trim that might fall off inside the car or a glovebox that doesn’t shut properly but something like the Vauxhall Zafira fire hazard that caused more than 160 cars to catch alight.

 

You may recall (as it was widely publicised) that some 234,000 Zafiras built between 2005 and 2014 were recalled following the fire problem that Vauxhall initially refused to accept as a problem. This was followed by a further recall of 47,000 of Zafira ‘B’ models for fear that the heating systems fitted could also lead to fires.

 

Initially, Vauxhall thought the problem only existed amongst cars that had the old fashioned heating and air-con systems fitted. But the latest action extended the recall to other models fitted with electronic climate control systems fitted to cars built during the same period. The fault relates to the system’s heater blower and regulator.

 

Letters have gone out to drivers and registered keepers advising of the recall but this is my issue. Vauxhall have explained to Auto Express that out of the original 234,000 cars, 86.5% were subsequently fixed leaving 31,000 untreated cars on the road, potentially putting lives at risk. Whilst these issues should not exist in the first place, once identified there should be a mechanism that enables every affected car to be identified.

 

Vauxhall says that it continues to pursue outstanding cars but added to their response to Auto Express: ‘this can take longer if a change in ownership is involved or if owners ignore our letters. There are also some vehicles which have been taken off the road or scrapped since the recall was issued’.

 

Since this was done I am now aware that in April 2019 a further recall was issued, making 4 in total on this car, that includes cars fitted with manual and no air condition. The latest recall of 235,000 cars also includes cars that were previously fixed for an entirely different problem.

 

Whilst the Government has criticised Vauxhall for their indifference to the problem in the early days, this is dreadful and more should be done to stop this from happening in the future. All safety recalls should be subject to a more robust system.

 

DVLA records should be scanned for cars that have been written off or simply scrapped and advised back to the car manufacturer. A note should also be added to the individual car file that contains MOT details so that the MOT station can advise drivers of the safety recall in case the change of ownership had not been recorded and the recall letter not delivered to the new owner.

 

Garage records should also be updated on each car to contain recall information ready for when the car is serviced. If the recall is a safety recall the car should not be released back on the road until the problem has been fixed.

 

Once it can be shown that the driver was advised it should be a criminal offence to drive a car under safety recall in the same way that it is illegal to drive a car without a current MOT test or illegal tyres or brakes that put lives at risk. Failure to take action should result in a fine or points on the driver’s licence. That’s what I think! By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

Pathetic Electric Charging Infrastructure Is Restricting Demand For EV’s

Wednesday, 12. June 2019

We all know that the more electric vehicles on our roads in the UK the greater the demand for public charge points. Even with public charge points you will need a domestic charge point as the cost of charging an electric car using a public charge point pushes up the cost per mile.

 

When the fuel stations started to introduce fast chargers they were charging an introductory rate which was roughly half price. Once they increased the rates the cost per mile was higher for an electric car than a petrol or diesel car. Whilst local authority installed charge points should be cheaper they will still be more expensive than domestic chargers.

 

However, London has decided to assist motorists and encourage the purchase of electric cars by converting lamp posts into EV charge points as part of a £300,000 project. The points can deliver charge rates of up to 7.7Kw, and are being installed at 50 lamp posts in Southwark.

 

The charge points are being supplied by char.gy and funded by Go Ultra Low City Scheme. The chargers can be accessed by EV drivers on pay-as-you-go basis. Poppy Welch from Go Ultra Low said she wants to see, ‘All new street lighting columns include charging points’ in areas with on-street parking. By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

‘Noise Cameras’ To Be Introduced To Stop Noisy Cars & Motorcycles

Wednesday, 12. June 2019

Similar to speed cameras, new cameras are being trialled to measure noise levels from vehicles and like speed cameras, they will record the registration number of the vehicle exceeding legal limits.

 

The trial has been authorised by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling and will take place later this year. The cameras will detect noisy vehicles in quiet residential areas and anyone caught breaking noise level laws will be fined.

 

Noise pollution is becoming a big problem. So much so that many police forces have set up on-line systems that allow members of the public to report incidents. Mr Grayling is following the example set by Canada, Singapore, Australia and the UAE who are already using noise cameras.

 

Mr Grayling is keen to see the results of the trials as he is concerned about the misery caused to communities by thoughtless drivers exceeding acceptable noise pollution levels. If the trials are successful he will roll the cameras out across the whole of the UK.  The trials will also help to formalise legal noise levels. As a general rule noise levels over 90 decibels constitutes a nuisance but there is no formal noise limit.

 

So if you are having problems with car or motorcycle noise you can report it but it probably won’t be long before they install noise cameras somewhere near you. By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

Is Keyless Car Theft Pushing Up Your Insurance Premium?

Wednesday, 12. June 2019

According to Auto Express, cars that are vulnerable to keyless theft are set to face higher insurance costs, after the industry experts responsible for setting vehicle “risk ratings” confirmed they would be penalising vehicles that are susceptible to relay attacks.

 

Thatcham Research, the insurance industry’s automotive research centre, confirmed that if manufacturers failed to include countermeasures to fend off relay attacks on cars with keyless entry systems, the organisation would recommend insurers judge them less favourably when calculating premiums.

 

While carmakers will be given a grace period to beef up the robustness of keyless systems, from 2021 Thatcham will change its new vehicle security assessment programme (NVSA) to reflect which models are most vulnerable to keyless theft. Insurers don’t have to abide by the guidelines, but the NVSA rating system helps to determine a car’s insurance group rating, meaning many cars are likely to attract higher premiums once the changes come into place.

 

Owners seeking to future-proof any prospective new-car purchase against potential insurance price hikes post 2021, meanwhile, can head to Thatcham’s security page to check if a car has a Superior, Good, Basic, Poor, or Unacceptable NVSA rating – though the grading system only applies to models introduced since the start of 2019.

 

You can reach the Thatcham Security Page by following this link:

https://www.thatcham.org/what-we-do/security/consumer-rating-2

 

The UK is currently experiencing an epidemic of car theft, with insurance payouts for stolen cars at their highest level since 2012, a study by German engineers finding almost every keyless system can be hacked, and police recording under half of all stolen cars being recovered. Carmakers have recently started to roll out fixes to the keyless conundrum, however, with Ford introducing a new keyless key with a motion sensor that puts the fob to sleep when it is not moving.

 

Commenting on the news, Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said the automotive industry “takes vehicle crime extremely seriously”, while the latest models “feature sophisticated immobilisers, tracking devices and encrypted key codes which prevent cloning.” Hawes also called for the government to ban the relay boxes that facilitate keyless theft. By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

Poor Recording Is Putting Lives At Risk!

Friday, 24. May 2019

I have been very vocal about many of our disgraceful recording systems that affect peoples lives. Take the Credit Reference Agencies. Virtually every penny of the £1.6 trillion of consumer debt was approved after consulting one, two or all three credit reference agencies.

 

And yet did you know that there is no legal obligation on any lender to record your transactions on any of the credit reference agency platforms? It’s ridiculous and amateurish! There is also no obligation on car finance providers to record their transactions on HPI and Experian platforms.

 

That’s right they don’t have to record if your car is on finance – it’s purely voluntary. In law as long as you ask the seller of a car if the car is on finance and as long as he says no, if it is on HP, PCP or conditional sale you are an innocent buyer and you own the vehicle. The finance company cannot get the car off you.

 

So when you read about a driver who has been confronted by a finance company who shows them that the car they bought privately was on finance with the finance company and that the person they bought the car from had no right to sell the car, therefore they own the car – it’s nonsense. They may even ask the driver if he checked the car on HPI. And when drivers have said no the finance company has said they must hand the keys over – supported by the motor magazine.

 

The problem is that if you hand over the keys you have no further rights to the car unless you were bullied. The point here is that because there is no legal obligation to record finance details on HPI (or Experian) there is no legal obligation on you to check before you buy.

 

So much for all the hype around HPI and the need to check HPI to see if the car is on finance. But even worse Auto Express (AE) and the BBC have revealed that even though new rules have been introduced covering written off cars and the need for insurance write-offs to be recorded on the platforms – they aren’t and as a result write off cars have found their way back onto the road.

 

An undercover BBC investigation found that written-off cars are being repaired and sold to unsuspecting motorists after passing their history checks

 

A BBC investigation has found that cars previously sold as write-offs at salvage auction are passing their vehicle history checks, and being sold at major second-hand car dealerships to unsuspecting buyers.

 

The undercover research, shown on BBC1’s Rip Off Britain, echoes the investigation AE published in March, which found cars that have been deemed insurance write-offs following serious accidents are passing vehicle history checks with a clean bill of health.

 

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.

 

While Auto Express’s research focussed on the loopholes that allow these written-off cars to pass their history checks, and highlighted examples of these cars being sold via online classified sites, the BBC sent undercover reporters to the UK’s largest used car retailer, Evans Halshaw, and two other big-name dealership chains, Arnold Clark and Car Store.

 

The researchers found cars that had previously been sold at salvage auction as write-offs had passed their background checks, and their true history had not been uncovered by the retailers. Forensic car expert John Dabek told the BBC he was surprised the dealers hadn’t spotted the cars had been repaired following serious accident damage.

 

The retailers involved either blamed the data systems they relied on for history checks or said they had carried out all the checks they could.

 

Prior to the BBC’s investigation, Auto Express uncovered a number of cars, that were sold at a salvage auction having been classified as ‘Cat S’. This means 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.

 

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

 

How do vehicle history checks work?

 

Experian AutoCheck and HPI – the two biggest players in the business – told AE that they exclusively rely on the Motor Insurance Anti Fraud & Theft Register, or MIAFTR, to determine if a car has been written off.

 

MIAFTR is a nationwide database run by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), and 97 per cent of insurance companies subscribe to it. When an insurer writes off a vehicle, those subscribing to MIAFTR place it on the Register as a write-off. Some history-check businesses outsource to these two companies. The AA relies on HPI data, for example, while the RAC uses Experian.

 

  1. MIAFTR is non-mandatory, and not all insurers use it

It is a legal requirement for insurers to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) when a car is written off, but it is not a requirement for them to use MIAFTR to do so – MIAFTR acts as an electronic funnel, automatically informing the DVLA of write-offs, assuming these are uploaded to MIAFTR.

 

The MIB told AE that “97 per cent of the motor insurance market currently subscribe to the MIAFTR database to load the details of their written-off vehicles”. There are 203 UK motor insurance companies authorised by the Bank of England, meaning six do not use MIAFTR; it therefore follows that cars written off by these six insurers are unlikely to be detected by history checks.

 

  1. Third-party-only insurance

 

The MIB suggested that a car may not be detected as a write-off “if the vehicle is not comprehensively insured”. Because third-party insurance does not pay out for damage sustained to the insured vehicle itself, such cars will not have been declared a total loss by the insurer, so may not be on MIAFTR.

 

  1. Delays in updating MIAFTR

 

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau told us some insurance firms “load manually or in batches” when placing cars on MIAFTR, creating potential delays. Some of the cars AE analysed were auctioned as write-offs more than a year ago and were still not detected by the history checks they ran, though.

 

Furthermore, data obtained via a Freedom of Information request shows the DVLA was informed of 7,676 Cat D and Cat C cars in the 2018 calendar year – even though Cat D and Cat C write-off classifications were replaced by Cat S and Cat N in October 2017.

 

This means that vehicles placed on the DVLA’s database as Cat C and Cat D in 2018 must have been assessed as write-offs the previous year under the old classifications, with a delay of at least three months.

 

  1. Weak legislation

 

Legally, insurers must inform the DVLA when a car is written off, but the MIB says “there is no mandated timeframe for supplying write-off data to the DVLA”, creating potential delays even in the official database. The closure of the Vehicle identity Check (VIC) scheme in October 2015 could also have a part to play.

 

The VIC scheme saw a ‘marker’ placed against Cat C cars (now Cat S) on the DVLA database. These cars had to pass a VIC test, where an inspector would assess them before the DVLA would remove the marker and issue a new V5C logbook. The VIC test didn’t assess the quality of repairs, but if inspectors noticed a “serious defect which would make the car dangerous”, they would issue a prohibition notice, and the car could not be driven. Cat S write-offs now only need to pass an MoT test before being put on the road.

 

  1. Paper-based write-offs

 

Further DVLA data obtained via a Freedom of Information request reveals that 4,870 vehicles were written off via paper notifications over the past five calendar years. These cars bypassed MIAFTR when being placed on the DVLA’s database, so would be unlikely to show up in checks.

 

  1. History checks relying solely on MIAFTR to check for write-offs

 

MIAFTR is non-mandatory, subject to delays and may not hold records for written-off cars that only had third-party insurance. So for history-checking firms to rely solely on its data to determine a car’s write-off status is problematic.

 

How widespread is the problem?

 

Write-off category No. vehicles on MIAFTR No. vehicles on DVLA database Difference between MIAFTR & DVLA No. vehicles on MIAFTR No. vehicles on DVLA database Difference between MIAFTR & DVLA
2016/17 2016/17 2016/17 2017/18 2017/18 2017/18
Cat A 8,926 8,851 75 9,502 9,370 132
Cat B 105,805 115,325 -9,520 109,417 119,559 -10,142
Cat C 325,324 367,093 -41,769 152,084 177,089 -25,005
Cat D 166,718 211,100 -44,382 83,783 110,407 -26,624
Cat S 343 0 343 101,798 123,579 -21,781
Cat N 432 0 432 140,694 148,431 -7,737
Total 607,548 702,369 -94,821 597,278 688,435 -91,156

 

Auto Express obtained data from the DVLA showing how many write-off ‘transactions’ the agency processed during financial years 2016/17, and 2017/18. The MIB provided AE with the number of write-offs it held records for over the same periods. Data from both organisations is for vehicles, so includes trucks, vans and motorbikes, as well as cars.

 

There is a significant difference between the two organisations’ databases, with nearly 100,000 fewer written-off vehicles a year appearing on MIAFTR compared with DVLA records. Even after removing from the equation Cat A and B vehicles – which must be scrapped and can never be driven again – these numbers give a clear idea of the discrepancies between MIAFTR and the DVLA’s database.

 

What do the organisations involved say?

 AE sent HPI and Experian details of three sample cars that were previously written off but passed their history checks. HPI consumer director Fernando Garcia told us: “Where third- party data is found to be inaccurate or factually incorrect, HPI will work with these partners to ensure that consumer safety remains the main priority and is not compromised in any way.”

 

Stressing that HPI “constantly monitors the quality of the data it generates and receives”, Garcia said: “If the consumer conducts an HPI Check and it did not show the Vehicle Condition Alert Register information, they would be covered by our guarantee if they adhere to our terms and conditions.”

 

An Experian spokesperson said the company understands “the cause for concern with the three vehicles highlighted”. Experian explained that it uses MIAFTR “to check whether a vehicle has been marked as ‘written off’ by an insurer”, but that “as none of the three vehicles were recorded as a total loss, they did not show as ‘written off’ on the vehicles’ provenance reports. We will continue to work with our data and insurance industry partners to establish the circumstances behind these three vehicles”.

 

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau, the organisation that runs MIAFTR, added that “Cat S write-offs will receive a V5C document from DVLA… [that] should alert keepers to the status of the vehicle”. The MIB also stressed that “CAT S and N vehicles can be repaired and legally driven again”.

 

The DVLA simply said: “Insurance companies are required to notify DVLA of all accident-damaged vehicles.”

 

What are the potential consequences for car buyers?

 

Safety

 

It is impossible to tell from photos how well these cars were repaired after their accidents, but buyers of Cat S and Cat N vehicles are typically advised to commission an independent mechanical inspection before making a purchase – a course of action far less likely with a car believed not to be a write-off.

 

Financial loss

 

Cars that have been written off are worth significantly less than their non-write-off counterparts. Anyone who bought a car at standard market value and subsequently finds out it was declared Cat S or Cat N stands to make a substantial loss when they sell it on, assuming its true history is subsequently detected in history checks, or the owner finds out it was written off. It is an offence to knowingly sell a written-off car without declaring its write-off status.

 

How can buyers protect themselves?

 

The majority of written-off cars are loaded onto MIAFTR and picked up by history-checking companies, but AE’s investigation will undoubtedly raise concerns among second-hand car buyers. Consumers seeking additional reassurances could consider paying for a mechanical inspection, which should determine whether a car was repaired following a serious accident.

 

Buyers are also offered some protection by a history-check guarantee. Both HPI and Experian AutoCheck will pay up to £30,000 to ensure buyers do not suffer financial losses as a result of their checks – although terms and conditions apply to these guarantees.

 

A third option is to make use of www.vcheck.uk, where you can get a basic check against salvage records for free.

 

Of course the fourth option would be to only take new cars supplied by GHA Finance! By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

Jaguar LandRover Woes Continue With Massive Recall

Friday, 24. May 2019

Having just posted huge losses of £3.6 billion and with Land Rover languishing at the bottom of the reliability charts and Jaguar not far behind they are now into more expense as they issue a major recall of 44,000 cars that may be emitting more Carbon Dioxide than was recorded in Official certification.

 

The recall covers versions of the Jaguar XF, XE, E-Pace, F-Pace and F-Type as well as the Land Rover Discovery, Discovery Sport and Range Rover Sport, Evoque andVelar, made between 2016 and 2019 with petrol and diesel engines.

 

JLR will contact owners to book their cars into their local dealer for repairs to be carried out free of charge. The recall came just weeks after the Land Rover Discovery TD6outperformed a number of other cars in independent real-world pollution tests thanks to the impressively low levels of nitrogen oxide emissions it produced. By Graham Hill

 

Incorrect emissions tests could attract some massive EU fines, hopefully, this action will avoid the possibility of the added pain of fines. By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

When Electric Vehicles Go Wrong – Frightening Revelation

Friday, 24. May 2019

Whilst the three biggest problems preventing drivers from making the switch, i.e. price of cars, range and charging infrastructure a new challenge has emerged. If an electric or plug-in hybrid car breaks down or is involved in an accident it needs specialist recovery. Fleet News has investigated the implications.

 

The two main issues are battery complications and the fact that electric vehicles (EV’s) cannot be towed or moved unless the car can be switched on to enable the car to be put into neutral, freeing up the wheels that will be locked in gear.

 

To reduce the risk of battery fires or electrocution, most EVs use circuit breakers that disconnect the high-voltage system if an impact is detected.

 

The emergency services will also seek to disconnect any high-voltage components on electric vehicles if they are required to attend. These added complications  mean recovery firms can have a tougher job of collecting these often heavy vehicles.

 

When a BMW i3 operated by Speedy Services was involved in a collision, it took 15 hours for the vehicle to be recovered by the company’s appointed recovery agent, the AA.

 

“When the first AA man turned up, he said he didn’t know anything about electric vehicles,” said Gareth Jones, transport compliance manager at Speedy Services.

 

“A second man arrived later. He was concerned that the battery was damaged and there could be a health and safety issue around transporting hazardous materials.”

 

The i3 was immobile because there was no power to it.  Jones said they couldn’t disengage the handbrake and the electric motor was locked, so the wheels wouldn’t turn.

 

A third AA vehicle – a flatbed truck with a winch – was able to recover the car. But the operator first had to work out the weight of the car and the angle it would need to be pulled at, to see if the winch was powerful enough.

 

“The operator had to literally drag the car up onto a flatbed truck. It was the most annoying day,” said Jones. Speedy Services has been operating three BMW i3s, which have been converted into vans, for the past two years. This incident was the first the fleet encountered.

 

“We were flabbergasted that companies like the AA seemed unaware of how to deal with it,” said Jones.

 

“I don’t think the UK is geared up to recover vehicles of this type yet. It hasn’t put us off EVs though. We’ve all got to move forwards and embracing new technology is a core part of our business. What we have to do is look at how we are going to stop it happening again.”

 

In a statement, the AA said all its patrols are trained to work safely on EVs. However, it did point out that where EVs suffer damage in the event of an accident, there could
be additional health and safety considerations before recovering the vehicle. This may require further risk assessments or equipment. In order to make the scene safe, it may also include specialist support for road traffic collisions.

 

The Institute of Vehicle Recovery (IVR) delivers specialist training to enable recovery firms to handle electrified vehicles correctly. It has seen a lot of demand for its EV course.

 

Mark Hartell, vice-chairman of the IVR, said: “It is vital that all technicians, and those responsible for sending them out, appreciate the hazards and specialist knowledge required to recover this type of vehicle.”

 

Jones advises fleet operators to ensure that recovery firms are aware they are being called to deal with an electric vehicle, whether directly or through an accident management provider.

 

Pete Williams, RAC road safety spokesman, said: “Our approach to EVs and hybrids is consistent with how we deal with conventional petrol and diesel vehicles. In the event of an accident, if requested to recover an EV vehicle by the fleet manager, we would send a flatbed lorry.

 

“EVs present a particular challenge as most cannot be towed normally and should be transported with all wheels off the ground. It is a similar situation with many other modern vehicles, including crossovers, SUVs, 4x4s, pick-ups, vans and automatics.

 

“In response, we have developed our new All-Wheels-Up equipment that effectively brings flatbed recovery capability to our standard long-wheel based orange patrol vans. To date, 600 have been equipped with this new kit. So a single van can recover an EV – saving the driver valuable time.”

 

The total number of fully electric cars registered in the UK rose by 59% last year, accounting for about 1% of total sales. Plug-in hybrids are more popular, making up 2.8% of sales.

 

A recent survey by Kia found that 87% of fleet managers have encountered increased demand for electrified vehicles, but the majority feel that the cars won’t be suitable for another two to five years.

 

Kia’s Fleet Green Perspectives Report found that 65% of fleets operate plug-in vehicles, an increase of 27% in the past year.

 

It seems that we need to go much further if we are to convince drivers to embrace EV’s and move across from petrol and diesel cars. We only seem to be scratching the surface and paying lip service to those who want to live in a cleaner environment. By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks

Amazing Truth About Speed Cameras

Friday, 24. May 2019

At the start of 2019, rumours swept the internet that speed camera tolerances on certain motorways were so strict, they would issue tickets if drivers exceeded the 70mph limit by just 1mph.

 

This would have been worrying had you not read my report last week on the accuracy of car speedo’s.

 

The stories  and rumours turned out to be untrue and unfounded. But rather than allow misinformation about speed camera ‘thresholds’ to circulate unchecked, Auto Express asked the UK’s 45 police forces via Freedom of Information requests how strictly their 3,224 speed cameras enforce limits.

 

The majority of the forces that responded to Auto Express said their cameras would only activate when drivers exceed the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2mph, in line with prosecution guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

 

This means cameras won’t issue tickets until someone is driving at 35mph or more in a 30mph limit, or 79mph or more on the motorway, for example.

 

The Metropolitan Police, which uses a less strict, 10 per cent plus 3mph threshold, say this is “a proportional response to the high volumes of traffic” in the capital. Lancashire Police also sets its cameras so that they activate at 10 per cent plus 3mph, and says that this has been done “to ensure greater tolerance or discretion”.

 

A number of forces wouldn’t tell us their camera thresholds, arguing that knowledge of these would encourage drivers to speed. All police forces that told us their thresholds said these applied to both fixed and average speed cameras.

 

Speed camera thresholds across the UK

Police force Number of cameras Camera activation threshold
Avon and Somerset 41 10% + 2mph
Bedfordshire 38 Would not reveal threshold
Cambridgeshire 32 Would not reveal threshold
Cheshire 15 10% + 2mph
Cleveland 4 10% + 2mph
Derbyshire 18 10% + 2mph
Devon and Cornwall 98 10% + 2mph
Durham 0 fixed 10% + 2mph
Essex 63 Don’t use a standard threshold
Greater Manchester 235 Would not reveal threshold
Gwent 21 10% + 2mph
Hampshire 36 10% + 2mph
Hertfordshire 53 Would not reveal threshold
Kent 109 10% + 2mph
Lancashire 34 10% + 3mph
Leicestershire 30 10% + 2mph
Merseyside 18 10% + 2mph
Metropolitan Police/TfL 805 10% + 3mph
Norfolk 26 10% + 2mph
North Wales 28 10% + 2mph
Northumbria 55 10% + 2mph
Nottinghamshire 48 Refused to confirm if threshold exists
Police Service of Northern Ireland 12 10% + 2mph
Scotland 173 Refused to confirm if threshold exists
South Wales 137 10% + 2mph
South Yorkshire 25 10% + 2mph
Staffordshire 286 Would not reveal threshold
Suffolk 4 10% + 2mph
Thames Valley 294 10% + 2mph
Warwickshire 28 10% + 2mph
West Mercia 23 10% + 2mph
West Midlands 33 Would not reveal threshold
West Yorkshire 402 10% + 2mph

 

I should make it clear that this in no way should encourage drivers to break speed limits as they realise they have a ‘free allowance’. Especially in built-up areas and areas close to schools and homes for the elderly.

 

Personally, I would like to see greater enforcement of the ‘Keep Left’ rules. Far too often I see cars hogging the outside lane of motorways causing frustrated drivers to either undertake or end up flashing the car in front potentially leading to road rage. By Graham Hill

Share My Blogs With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • MisterWong
  • Y!GG
  • Webnews
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Alltagz
  • Ask
  • Bloglines
  • Facebook
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • TwitThis
  • Squidoo
  • MyShare
  • YahooBuzz
  • De.lirio.us
  • Wikio UK
  • Print
  • Socializer
  • blogmarks