Bits & Pieces: Poor Car Conditions, EV Fast Charging, Tyre Pressures & More

Thursday, 11. July 2019

Poor Car Condition: 73,500 drivers were taken to court in England and Wales for keeping a car in a condition that invalidates their insurance. The message here is that having a car insured comes with conditions. If your car hasn’t been properly serviced and maintained you could have an insurance claim thrown out.

 

EV Fast Charging: 100 miles of range can be added to an electric car in just 10 minutes when charging using BP’s new 150kW Rapid Chargers. What they don’t tell you is the cost

 

Car Maintenance: 61% of drivers don’t check their tyre pressures or oil at least once a month. Low tyre pressures can increase fuel consumption and tyre wear as well as make the car dangerous. Not checking the oil could lead to engine damage.

 

Cars Stolen: There were 307 cars stolen every single day in the UK during the 2017/18 financial year. More still needs to be done to protect drivers from car thieves. Make sure you are properly protected if you have keyless entry.

 

By Graham Hill

Law Firm Warns Car Dealers About Consumer Complaints

Thursday, 11. July 2019

It’s obscene the way that some law firms advise dealers on what to do to deprive consumers of their legal rights. If you are a regular reader of my news items you will have read how dealers are advised to repair faulty cars during the rejection period of 14 days ‘under warranty’.

 

This is because if you reserve your right to reject the car but allow the dealer to fix the problem he only has one chance to fix it. But if he repairs the car ‘under warranty’ that does not count as his one chance so in law if the car hasn’t been fixed he can have another attempt.

 

So what are they now saying to dealers to deprive customers of their rights? Again it is to do with faulty cars just after ‘purchase’. I say purchase but what I mean is financed on a PCP or Hire Purchase agreement. They are telling dealers to forcefully explain that if there is a problem with the car it is their responsibility and to bring it back for them to sort out.

 

The reason for saying this is that if you have a rejectionable complaint you should take it up with the finance company and not the dealer as it is the finance company that owns the car and is responsible for the quality of ‘the goods’. But if you complain to the finance company according to the lawyers they are more likely to roll over and agree to a rejection or a repair than the dealer would.

 

If a consumer doesn’t get satisfaction from the finance company they can refer the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which will determine the case not on the law but whatever he deems to be ‘reasonable’.

 

Finance companies don’t like dealing with the FOS as it costs them money so better to accept the rejection then go for the dealer who is then over a barrel as most dealers wouldn’t have the resources to fight the legal team of a lender.

 

The agreements between the dealers and the finance providers are generally heavily stacked against the dealer so the lenders are less likely to fight the consumer if they know they can pursue the dealer for the costs.

 

So the point I’m making is if you have a complaint about a car that you bought on a PCP or HP agreement take it up with the finance provider NOT the dealer, you ar more likely to get a result. By Graham Hill

Frightening Report On Private Cars Being Used For Business

Thursday, 11. July 2019

A must read report whether you are an employer or you drive your own car on company business, even if it is only to drop off the post at a local post box or post office!

 

According to this report in Fleet News one in six at-work drivers says they have been involved in an accident when taking a call from a colleague, new research suggests.

 

The study, commissioned by Driving for Better Business (DfBB), also revealed a worrying lack of checks for employees driving their own car for work, the so-called grey fleet.

 

It showed that half of business leaders polled (49%) expect their employees to answer their phone at any time, including while driving for work.

 

Almost half of employees (45%) said they experience stress when they receive a call from their boss while driving for work. One in six employees who drive for work (17%) said they have been involved in an incident when driving for work due to a phone call from a colleague.

 

Despite it being illegal, one in 20 executive directors and one in eight employees thought the hard shoulder was a safe place to take a phone call.

 

Meanwhile, six in 10 (61%) employees admitted they do not always, or only sometimes, find a safe place to make or receive a work call when driving for work with just over one in eight (13%) thinking it safe to take a phone call while parked on the hard shoulder of a motorway.

 

The findings also showed that despite three quarters (75%) of executive directors claiming to ensure employees are aware of their legal obligations in relation to driving for work, nearly half (45%) of employees surveyed who drive their personal car for work said they have not been given a copy of their employer’s driving for work policy.

 

It found that managers were not performing checks on grey fleet drivers and 60% of respondents said they were unsure if any or how many employees use their own car to drive for work purposes.

 

Furthermore, nearly a half of employees who use their personal car for work purposes (45%) said they have not been given a copy of their employer’s driving for work policy.

 

The survey reveals that 90% of drivers used their personal cars for work journeys, 75% doing so at least once a week, yet a third of these drivers (33%) were not insured to do so – saying they do not have cover for business use on their vehicle insurance. Only a third (34%) said their employer had checked their driving licence.

 

The survey also found a poor approach to vehicle checks and maintenance by employees. Nearly three quarters of employees who drive for work (74%) said when they check their tyres they simply take a quick glance to see that tyres look ‘OK’.

 

Simon Turner, campaign manager for Driving for Better Business said: “The report shows a disparity between what employers and employees are saying when driving for work.”

 

He says senior managers are failing to communicate and implement a robust driving for work policy to keep those who drive for work safe, particularly for the grey fleet.

 

“Leaders are failing to carry out basic due diligence checks such as ensuring that all employees have a driving licence or vehicle insurance,” he said.

 

“At the same time, the study highlights employees are putting themselves at risk while driving for work, not checking that vehicles are roadworthy and exhibit reckless behaviours when using their mobile phone.”

 

He continued: “Leaders must implement a driving for work policy that enforces legal and ethical obligations on all employees that drive on work-related journeys.

 

“Regular checks need to be put in place to ensure that employees have read and understood the guidelines laid out in the driving for work policy. In doing so, the associated risk to road users and pedestrians is reduced.”

 

Driving for Better Business promotes a free seven-step programme of action to reduce occupational road risk. Organisations that introduce the DfBB programme have experienced significant operational, financial and employee benefits.

 

Turner concluded: “A good practice driving for work policy ensures that at a minimum, organisations are compliant with all relevant legislation and guidelines.

 

Once implemented, these policies complement more general employee safety and wellness programmes as well as introduce efficiencies that reduce costs associated with employees that drive for work purposes.”

 

DfBB surveyed 1,006 employees and 255 executive directors from the UK. The survey was conducted by Censuswide. By Graham Hill with thanks to Fleet News.

Motorway Services To Be More Transparent About Fuel Prices

Thursday, 4. July 2019

In a report in Auto Express, Chris Grayling calls for motorway fuel retailers to share live price data via apps and sat-navs

 

Motorway fuel retailers should share live pricing information to prevent drivers being taken advantage of, the transport secretary has said.

 

Chris Grayling has contacted a number of motorway service station operators, asking them to list how much they are charging for petrol and diesel at their motorway forecourts at any one time on smartphone apps and sat-navs.

 

If motorists were able to access this data in advance, rather than having to pull off the motorway and drive to the forecourt, they would be able to better plan motorway journeys and work out where to get the cheapest fuel. In addition, the Department for Transport has suggested that the data could be used by autonomous vehicles in future.

 

Petrol and diesel prices at motorway service stations can be around 15p per litre more expensive than at other retailers.

 

Grayling said that, if motorway fuel retailers decline to make their live pricing data openly available in the way he has suggested, he will launch an “urgent review” into how motorists can refuel affordably.

 

“Fuel prices are highest on motorways, taking advantage of drivers who have less choice when it comes to shopping around,” said Grayling. “Accessing this data on a smartphone or sat-nav means motorists can plan ahead and refuel safely at the best possible price.”

 

RAC fuel spokesman Simon Williams commented: “While we welcome the idea of motorway fuel retailers sharing their pricing data in terms of better transparency, the reality is any app will only tell drivers what they already know – that motorway fuel prices are unbelievably expensive.”

 

Williams added that RAC research has shown 44 per cent of drivers “would never buy fuel on the motorway”, advising motorists to try and find forecourts that charge at or below the average price of fuel. By Graham Hill

Changes To Petrol & Diesel Labelling Explained

Thursday, 4. July 2019

According to Auto Express, the DfT has started the rollout of E5 and B7 labels indicating ethanol and biofuel content of petrol and diesel. Signs will be mandatory by 1 September

 

The Department for Transport (DfT) is rolling out a new set of labels for petrol and diesel pumps at filling stations across the UK, with unleaded petrol to be renamed E5, and diesel labelled as B7. E10 petrol is likely to follow at a later date.

 

The names relate to the percentage of ethanol and biofuel present in petrol and diesel respectively, and are intended to make motorists “think more carefully about the environmental impacts of their journeys” and “educate drivers on the benefits of biofuels.” The majority of unleaded sold in the UK must contain up to five per cent ethanol under the Government’s Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation, though no such requirements are in place for super-unleaded.

 

The new labels are being rolled out immediately, and garages will be legally required to display them by September 2019. As well as the mandated E5 label, petrol stations will have to clearly show the biofuel content of the diesel fuel being sold, with diesel comprised of seven per cent biofuel clearly labelled as ‘B7’.

 

Biofuels are typically comprised of a blend of oil and plant or animal fat fuel, with the UK’s biodiesel comprised of oilseed rape, sugar beet and wheat. Figures from 2016 show 132,000 hectares of land in the UK was used to grow crops for bioenergy.

 

The move towards E5 and B7 labels is likely to herald the arrival of E10 petrol, which contains up to 10 per cent bioethanol and is claimed to bring about a two per cent reduction in CO2. The Government launched a consultation into E10 petrol in 2018, but motoring organisations have warned as many as 800,000 cars can’t use E10, and a second response to the consultation is due later this year.

 

Commenting on the new labels, Transport Minister Michael Ellis said: “Biofuels are a key way of achieving the emissions reductions the UK needs, and their use reduced CO2 emissions by 2.7 million tonnes last year alone – the equivalent of taking around 1.2 million cars off the road.” By Graham Hill

Keyless Entry – Why?

Thursday, 4. July 2019

Many moons ago my dad bought a brand new Cortina and one of the options at the time was electric front windows. I asked if he was going to have the option as it looked pretty cool and his answer was – why? What problem did electric windows address? And besides which it was something else to go wrong.

 

Hand-cranked windows rarely went wrong and if they did a sharp bang on the inside of the door seemed to sort it out. So when you read daily of car crime increasing because of crooks being able to break into keyless car technology and nick cars and contents on an industrial scale I find myself asking the question – why? Why does the technology even exist?

 

What problem does keyless entry solve? I understand remote controls, one of the best things ever invented for TV’s and cars. With respect to cars, you no longer have to fumble in the dark to find a hole in which to stuff your key or breath on the door lock to defrost it enough to insert the key and gain entry on a frosty morning.

 

No more fumbling in the rain and with some diesels, remotely unlocking the car from a distance actually activates the pre-heaters which should be activated before starting the engine. So why this obsession with keyless entry? What is the problem it is solving over and above a remote key.

 

A remote key is capable of transmitting around a trillion variants of its generated code that allows the car to be locked/unlocked/boot opened etc. The only time the code can be accessed is when you push the button to transmit which is then changed the next time you lock or unlock the car making it incredibly difficult to break into the car.

 

On the other hand, a keyless device is transmitting constantly making it easy for crooks to harvest the code and unlock then start the car using a handheld computer device to gain entry. The fact is that it isn’t like my iPhone with either fingerprint or facial recognition you need to carry something so why not a remote key?

 

Personally, I don’t think my life will be in any way enhanced by having keyless entry so with a higher risk of theft and no doubt higher insurance premiums give me a remote control. My Audi is even more dopey. I have a remote control to open and lock the car and boot but when I’m in the car I have to press a button to start it with the remote control taking up space in one of my cup holders. Crazy!

 

In order to overcome the security issues faced by those with keyless entry I’ve scanned the solutions introduced by manufacturers and found that most either overcome the problem by using a Faraday bag that encases the signal or the remote can either be deactivated (a bit like pressing a button on a remote control) or it will deactivate itself if there is no movement. My solution is much easier, revert back to remote controls!

 

If you are concerned about keyless entry with your car some manufacturers have allowed for the keyless entry to be disenabled either yourself or by a main-dealer. Call their customer services or call into a dealer to find out. By Graham Hill

Why We May Not Hit Electric Vehicle Targets – NOT Lack Of Charge Points!

Thursday, 4. July 2019

In a recent piece I wrote about the grave lack of charge points that will prevent people from buying or leasing Electric Vehicles (EV’s) along with the lack of range and the ridiculously high cost to buy an EV compared to a petrol or diesel car – we have another factor. Batteries.

 

Despite everything, we are starting to see a rise in EV sales this year that has taken manufacturers by surprise. One would think that the solution would be simple – up the production of EV’s and solve the problem. On the face of it, that should be the solution but it would seem that increasing the supply of steel or say plastic components would be simple, increasing the supply of batteries isn’t so straight forward.

 

This increased production needs to be planned years ahead so the fact that Hyundai sold its whole year’s allocation of Kona electric models by March and has a waiting list of 2,000, Kia has also sold out of its year’s allocation of 1,000 e-Niro models it’s put pressure on battery supply. And there simply isn’t the production capacity.

 

And the increased demand isn’t just the UK, global demand has shot up making the problem even worse. EV’s have suddenly moved from being in the doldrums to higher than expected demand causing car manufacturers to up the investment stakes into battery development and production. Nissan, whilst suffering low sales of their Leaf has now reached ‘Inflection Point’ according to Roel De Vries, corporate vice president, global head of marketing at Nissan.

 

In other words, demand has outstripped expectations. But, as he pointed out, increasing supply of batteries isn’t as simple as increasing order quantities or place additional orders with other suppliers. The global suppliers are at capacity and if new suppliers are to come online it will take two years to get from plans to production.

 

In order to address the problem Nissan has taken a stake in Automotive Energy Supply and Toyota has signed an agreement with Panasonic to develop and make Lithium-ion, solid state and next-generation batteries. Other manufacturers are following suit. Kia has partnered two battery producers in order to avoid future bottlenecks in battery supply.

 

The other issue is cost which needs to come down substantially. Currently, the battery pack in an EV represents 40% of the total cost of the car and this has reduced from 70% over the last 7 years. KPMG expect the battery cost to drop by another 50% by 2030 to 20% of the cost of the car as a result of cell chemistry and economies of larger scale production.

 

Autotrader have also pointed out that the cost of producing an internal combustion engine is around £1,000 to £2,500 whilst an electric powertrain is approximately £8,000. But in a typical contradiction whenever we discuss EV’s PA Consultancy predict that parity between electric car cost and diesel car cost will reach parity as soon as next year. Given supply and demand of batteries, I find that very hard to believe.

 

Tesla pointed out that under-investment in mining over the last few years has led to a situation where raw materials could be in seriously short supply. Lithium is limited and could be the first problem so mining companies are searching for areas to mine to increase supply. Nickel is also another metal that will give supply problems.

 

Beyond the metals we have Cobalt and other minerals that also have to be mined. And the problems don’t stop with the mining. Specialist group, Security of Supply of Mineral Resources (SSMR) have pointed out that 60% of the world’s Cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo controlled by Chinese traders who use child labour and low pay.

 

They warn that we need supplies from more stable parts of the world or risk being held to ransom by unscrupulous traders. Who said moving to electric vehicles would be easy? Probably the same people who predicted that leaving the EU would be a breeze! By Graham Hill

Poor Used Car Values Affecting Contract Hire Rates

Thursday, 4. July 2019

As if things weren’t bad enough for those looking to change their cars this year or to take out a contract hire agreement for the first time, we are now hit with the news that used car values have taken a dive.

 

Brexit has had an adverse effect on most industries but especially on the car industry. For over 30 years we have benefitted from ‘dumping’, not my favourite expression but used to explain the way European manufacturers use the buoyant UK market to keep their production lines moving or to dispose of excess stock. Got a problem – bung a few more cars in the direction of the UK!

 

But times are changing. Many manufacturers don’t see the same future in the UK so are heavily investing in Europe, educating them into the methods of acquiring cars more cheaply rather than heavily discounting cars destined for the UK. The net result is higher cost of cars with fewer available forcing up prices even further. Poor exchange rates have affected costs also which in turn has pushed up rates.

 

The saviours over the last 2 years has been a very buoyant used car market which has had the effect of reducing rentals as lenders factor in strong resale values at the end of each lease. But for the last two months we have seen close to a collapse of used car prices giving the leasing companies the jitters.

 

2016 was a mega year for new car leases with the most popular lease period being 3 years so we knew that supply would increase this year but with demand dropping it has made matters worse. Whilst things may be wildly different in 3 years, as current cars end their lease period, this drop in used car prices, largely unexpected, has put the leasing companies on the backfoot.

 

Industry experts have suggested the old argument that this is a re-alignment of used car prices and that used cars had been overpriced for a while but will that wash and remove the panic to re-align lease rates time will tell but for the moment I wouldn’t expect lease rates to do anything other than increase. See a bargain – nab it before it goes. By Graham Hill

Mayor Khan Coming Out With The Usual Ill Informed Nonsense Over Diesel Cars

Thursday, 4. July 2019

So what’s he up to this time I hear you ask? Well Mr Angry of West Sussex here is getting really annoyed that we don’t hear anything concrete from this Government regarding diesel cars vs petrol cars vs hybrids vs electric cars.

 

He’s called for a national scrappage scheme which I don’t disagree with. The real culprits are the very old cars and vans that can be seen spewing out thick smoke and soot which is clearly not good for the atmosphere and the health of our nation.

 

Having said that MOT testers now have to carry out a visual check on the exhaust of all vehicles and if they are spewing out smoke they fail – simple as. Back to Mr Khan, he’s calling for a national scrappage scheme, not to put people into newer petrol cars that would be a step in the right direction (not exactly as I’ll explain) but into pure electric vehicles.

 

Well, first of all, you don’t have to be a financial whizz kid to realise that people that are driving old diesel cars about are either eccentric multi-millionaires that are tight with their money but can appreciate a good deal when they see it or is it because they are financially stretched and can’t afford a newer car otherwise they would be driving one?

 

So expecting these people to swap their old diesel for either a hugely expensive new electric car or a used electric with a range of 3 miles, on a good day, is pure idiocy! And if we could incentivise the diesel drivers to move across to electric cars what about the infrastructure. I live in a rural Sussex town but with the remnants of an old marriage taking up space in my garage that couldn’t accommodate my car anyway (even if it was empty) and with no power to the garage – charging in my garage would not be an option.

 

Parking in the road is manic and with lamp posts located on the inside of the pavements, we couldn’t even mount chargers on the lamp posts. The idea that we can convert everyone into EV drivers is a pipedream and not possible until battery technology catches up. A lightweight battery pack that could be easily removed from the car and charged indoors then reconnected into the car when needed could be a solution – but we aint there yet!

 

In the meantime, the answer would be to get new car buyers, with the ability to charge electric vehicles, to buy EV’s or plug in hybrids, the more sold would bring down the cost of used cars and make them more affordable.

 

But as the Government has removed the subsidy on hybrids and reduced the subsidy on EV’s it’s hardly a move in the right direction. And even companies, keen to get their company car drivers into EV’s with zero emissions face the challenge from employees that BIK tax this year, even on cars with zero emissions, face a BIK bill of 16% of the car’s overpriced list price.

 

I should also mention that if you read my 3 part report into the findings by the Germans who carried out a large survey into latest generation diesel cars only to find that emissions of NOx, CO2 and particulates were less than petrol when tested on the road in real world conditions so if anything we should be moving back to diesel as an interim measure.

 

Sorry Mr Khan, consider the above then I would get back to the drawing board if I were you!  By Graham Hill

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