In what seems to be a never-ending slaughter of German car manufacturers, they don’t seem to be helping themselves. A new in-depth investigation by the European Commission is intending to discover whether VW (Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche), BMW and Daimler, so-called the ‘Circle of Five’, colluded on a project to restrict the competition on development and roll-out on technology designed to help clean out emissions of both petrol and diesel cars.

How did this all come about?

In October of 2017, the European Commission entered into Anti-Trust investigations at the ‘Circle of Five’ headquarters to understand if any EU anti-trust laws had been broken. Now, nearly a year later, a formal investigation has been opened to properly investigate the matter.

The EU received information that cartel-like behaviour could potentially be happening through a report by the German magazine, Der Spiegel in a report they published last year. The report exposed the cartel and revealed documents that show potential collusion since the 1990’s. It states that VW initially self-incriminated themselves by voluntarily admitting to cartel-like behaviour in more recent years, but since that reveal, Der Spiegel researched heavily into the potential issue.

The EU frowns upon cartel behaviour, and this, if proven to be true, is a very prevalent example of cartel behaviour that limits the competition in the market, and potentially harms civilians by stopping them from buying lower emissions cars.

What is the investigation focusing on?

The core focus of the investigation is certain emissions control systems, two devices that are selective catalytic reduction (‘SCR’) systems to reduce harmful nitrogen oxides emissions from passenger cars with diesel engines; and ‘Otto’ particulate filters (‘OPF’) to reduce harmful particulate matter emissions from passenger cars with petrol engines.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy at the Europen Commision, said: “The Commission is investigating whether BMW, Daimler and VW agreed not to compete against each other on the development and roll-out of important systems to reduce harmful emissions from petrol and diesel passenger cars. These technologies aim at making passenger cars less damaging to the environment. If proven, this collusion may have denied consumers the opportunity to buy less polluting cars, despite the technology being available to the manufacturers.”

It is believed that the companies discussed numerous other technical issues as well, including at what speed a convertible roof could safely open and close, cruise control, common quality requirements for car parts, common quality testing procedures and crash testing.

While the EU anti-trust laws leave room for technical cooperation, it seems that this has gone a bit too far for the commission this time, hence the opening of a formal inquiry.

At the current stage in the investigation, the commision has no reason to believe the companies colluded on the defeat devices of the Dieselgate scandal.

Why is this important?

Something that is heavily frowned upon by the European Commission is cartel behaviour and anti-competitive behaviour. Since the 2015 dieselgate scandal, automotive groups, especially those based in Germany, have had to tread carefully, but this doesn’t help the already tarnished image that they, especially VW, already have. By potentially demonstrating this kind of behaviour, more shame will rest on the shoulders of the groups.

As this involves emissions, something that is currently at the forefront of the automotive industry’s issues, this propels the investigations to new heights. If the inquiry finds anything that shows that by engaging in anti-competitive behaviour the groups allowed higher emissions then it becomes a whole different ball game. It links it straight back to the dieselgate scandal and shows that despite everything there has been no change in the mindset of the companies. If the inquiry shows that they did engage in anti-competitive behaviour and from that emissions contributed to premature deaths and other pollution-related illnesses, then the fines could reach into the billions of Euros.

Next steps for the groups

All of the companies and brands involved, BMW, Daimler, VW (encompassing Audi, VW and Porsche,) are fully cooperating with the inquiry.

BMW said it was “wholeheartedly committed to the principles of market economics and fair competition,” and added “From the start of the investigation, the BMW Group has supported the commission in its work and will continue to do so. Due to the ongoing investigation, the BMW Group will not comment on the case.”

Daimler confirmed partaking in the investigation and filed a leniency application but wouldn’t comment any further on the matter.

All of the companies are focusing on electric cars now in order to show they are changing, indeed the BMW i8 and i3 are some of the most distinguishable electric cars on the roads. VW is aiming to release their first pure EV next year, called the iD, which will be a hatchback.

After this, the companies will have to do a lot of work to not only improve their image but to prove that they are contributing positively to society and actively helping to reduce emissions.

Do you think that this inquiry will show anything? What do you think about what has come to light? Let us know below

Tailgating is the most annoying habit among UK drivers, but analysis by Highways England (HE) has proven that it’s so much more than an annoyance – more than 100 people are killed or seriously injured every year on Britain’s motorways or major A roads; in fact, one-in-eight casualties are the direct result of tailgating.

Research has been carried out using dash cams, heart rate monitors and facial recognition systems that shows a typical response is anger, contempt, surprise and a sharp increase in heart rate, with drivers feeling ‘victimised’ or targeted.

Head of road safety at Highways England, Richard Leonard, states: “Tailgating distracts the motorist’s attention from the road, making them more likely to make a mistake”.

Space invader

Armed with this research, Highways England is launching a ‘Don’t Be A Space Invader’ campaign, supported with the backing of former Formula 1 champion, Nigel Mansell, who is also the President of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) RoadSmart, a road safety charity. Mansell himself describes the habit of tailgating as ‘deplorable’.

Worryingly, Highways England(HE) believes that in most cases of tailgating, the driver is simply unaware that they’re doing it (a passive tailgater), which when compared to another statistic they’ve released, gives you a clearer understanding of the size of the problem.

Earlier this year, HE surveyed just over 1,100 motorists, with 25% of them admitting to tailgating another driver in the last three months – and that’s the people that are aware they were doing it – the majority (according to HEs own findings) don’t – extrapolating that figure would tell us that the number of drivers guilty of tailgating must be over half.

The campaign

The Don’t Be a Space Invader campaign has been designed to try and quash tailgating completely, through raising awareness, giving advice and trying to get inconsiderate drivers to understand the implications and effects of tailgating. It will be shown throughout the country and companies such as National Express will be using the campaign on their long-distance coaches.

Raising awareness for the passive tailgater is all well and good, they are perhaps the most dangerous kind of tailgater, but it’s not going to stop the habitual bully from trying to push you along at an increased pace, and while powers do exist to tackle that problem, they rely on dwindling numbers of mobile traffic police – less than 10,000 tickets have been issued since the introduction of new legislation in August 2013, allowing the police to give on the spot fines.

‘Stay Safe, Stay Back’ is the strapline, and it’s hoped that it’s enough to prompt people in to thinking about their driving, rather than just semi-autonomously going about their daily commute.

Effects of tailgating

One insurance company has revealed that more than 25% of the claims between January and August of this year have involved a car being hit from the rear, and along with personal injury, there is the added increase to the insurance premium, loss of NCB and potential for legal proceedings.

Tailgating has also been linked to an increase in traffic jams thanks to the ripple effect of the brake lights, and should you be caught by the police, you’ll be liable for a £100 fine and potentially three penalty points.

But there are things that you can do, either as someone that’s inadvertently tailgating or as someone that is being tailgated:

• Always try to keep to the two-second rule as a minimum – leaving a gap of at least two seconds between you and the car in front (double that when it’s wet)
• Be aware of your surroundings – familiarity breeds contempt, so pay extra attention on your regular journeys
• Never assume the driver in front is aware of you
• Check your speed – are you driving too slowly or too fast?
• Do not speed up to ‘lose’ a tailgater – there is a chance that they’ll just follow you
• If it’s safe to do so, pull over and let the tailgater pass – don’t be tempted to police the roads yourself
• Never brake test a tailgater
• Check the official Highways England Space Invader site for further information

Tailgating has affected nearly 90% of motorists in one form or another, it seems to be happening on an epidemic proportion, and with modern life being lived at a pace, it’s unlikely to end soon. It seems that driving standards, in general, are on the decline, but with more campaigns like this, that could be turned around, and surely, we need to make driving a more pleasurable experience again.

What do you think of tailgaters? Should they face further legal action? Do you think this campaign will work? What else could Highways England do to make a difference? Let us know.

2015: Volkswagen admit to fitting some of their diesel cars with a ‘defeat device’, aimed squarely at cheating the emissions tests for diesels around the world, in whichever form that testing took place. To date, it’s thought to have cost the Volkswagen Group over £38bn in penalties, fines and compensation.

2018: The High Court of Justice has awarded the Volkswagen Group nearly half-a-million pounds in compensation with regards to costs for a Group Litigation Order that directly relates to the ‘dieselgate’ scandal.

Legal action

As the latest round of legal action against Volkswagen commences, in which investors are seeking compensation for the loss of share value to the tune of £8.2bn, there have been a number of “unnecessary and ineffective hearings” brought against the VW group in 2017 by legal firms acting on behalf of the UK owners, many of which have been premature, needless and unreasonable according to the court.

With this in mind, they will be awarding costs against some of the claimants to the value of £468,000 to Volkswagen, but it should be noted that this in no way diminishes the legality or the action against the Volkswagen Group in the longer term; this is perhaps more of an indication of the ‘ambulance chaser’ attitude toward the legal teams trying to make a fast penny from the action.

Despite there being no payout (as yet) for UK owners, Vopayoutn have already settled many cases in America, with claimants receiving a typical payout of between $5,000 to $10,000 depending on the age of the vehicle, so far, they’ve paid around $14bn.

The UK situation

To date, Volkswagen has offered to remove the defeat device from affected vehicles, as a free of charge service, but some drivers have commented on the lack of performance of the vehicle afterwards, which is no surprise.

There are a number of planned actions against the Volkswagen Group, the reason why the High Court has sided with VW in respect to the compensation has nothing to do with their liability, but there has been a deadline imposed; you need to register your claim before 26th October 2018 regardless of whether you’ve had the device removed or no longer own the vehicle. Missing this deadline could mean you’re not eligible for compensation.

Gareth Pope, head of group litigation for Slater and Gordon said: “Volkswagen have demonstrated high levels of contempt for UK owners by refusing to admit liability in the UK, over the same issue that they’ve paid compensation for elsewhere. They are relying on existing and former owners to not sign up to a group action”. It must be stated that Slater and Gordon are one of the firms criticised by the court for bringing premature and unnecessary action.

The bigger picture

It’s possible that this issue doesn’t just affect Volkswagen owners either, it’s believed that some Skoda, Seat and Porsche vehicles were also affected; the problem is so deep that the maker of the engine management system (Bosch GmbH) are ‘sponsoring’ some of the fines.

Volkswagen management has said that the Senior Management teams knew nothing of the cheating until 2015, that the decision to deliberately falsify the emissions was taken by middle-management and engineers, and if that was really the case, you’d have to wonder what other Quality Control procedures have been missed.

It’s this delay in reporting the scandal that has led to group litigation from investors – the share price lost 40% of its value in one day (approximately €25bn), and with record fines and compensation claims, Volkswagen has (to date) lost around $50bn, with yet more to lose when the UK legal action happens.

It’s worth noting that the U.S. has taken around $25bn in fines, penalties and compensation for the 580,000 diesels sold, whereas, in Europe, that number is closer to 8,000,000 diesel vehicles sold.

Further still, in December 2017, a Senior Engineer for Volkswagen USA was jailed for seven years for his part in the scandal, and the U.S. authorities are pushing to extradite Martin Winterkorn (Chief Executive Officer for Volkswagen) to face justice, but no extradition treaty exists between the USA and Germany so that’s unlikely to happen, however, it does send out a strong message to Volkswagen.

It seems that even three years later, Volkswagen is still paying the consequences for what’s become the biggest motoring scandal that we’ve seen, but it’s thanks (in part) to their action that new legislation in the form of the WLTP has been implemented, and that’s a good thing.

Are you part of the group litigation against Volkswagen? Do you think that Volkswagen’s CEO should face a prison sentence? Do you agree with the decision to compensate VW for unnecessary action? Let us know in the comments.

The head of Highways England, Jim O’Sullivan, said that the only reason the UK had not moved to an 80mph speed limit on motorways was due to social acceptability as well as condemning classic cars in a recent interview with the Telegraph.

The interview, released yesterday, showed overwhelming support from Mr O’Sullivan for higher speed limits on parts of the motorway network, especially in the move towards smart motorways and more autonomous motorways. He also showed a move towards restricting the roads that classic cars could go on in the future, as they pose a “hazard” to more autonomous vehicles that are not able to communicate with them.

Not a new plan

Back in 2011, Philip Hammond, who was Transport Secretary at the time, created a plan to increase the motorway speed limit to 80mph but lack of backing from the Coalition Government at the time meant that plans were shelved in June 2013.

Back then, the variety of Transport Ministers meant that mixed messaging was sent out to motorists. Some ministers, such as former Roads Minister Mike Penning who promised to set up trials of the 80mph limit. Later Patrick McLoughlin said the plans were “not a priority” while a source close to the ministry said it was more over safety concerns than anything else.

Alienating female drivers

At the time, the move pushed down by Downing Street as they felt it could ‘alienate female drivers.’ A survey conducted in 2013 by the AA showed that 41% of women thought that the idea wouldn’t work while 73% of men supported the change.

However, five years down the line it is highly likely that this will have changed with the increasing number of women driving, an estimated rise of 700,000 since 2013, and more and more confidence from women drivers.

Roll-out

As it currently stands, the scheme would have to be tested against a strict set of security measures. Raising the speed limit means deadlier crashes, and poses a much higher risk. However, surely some of this comes down to driver skill, as referenced by Mr O’Sullivan below.

Mr O’Sullivan speaking on the issue of safety in the interview said: “Dependant on driver skill which is a different issue, there are parts of the network that could probably be [updgraded to 80mph]. We have not done a formal safety analysis but there are parts of the network that subject to a safety analysis could probably operate at 80 miles an hour.”

One other thing noted by Mr O’Sullivan was the social norm of driving at 70mph and changing the social attitude towards driving at a higher speed. This is thought to be the harder aspect of moving to a 70mph motorway, rather than any technical parts. Mr O’Sullivan said on this matter “I think there is a technical argument about speed and safety of vehicles etc but I think 70 miles per hour is so socially embedded in this country that I think it is probably not going to change, in fact, it’s almost certainly not going to change. I think that has more to do with public opinion and social views than it has with the technology of vehicles.”

Classic car condemnation

Along with statements about upgrading speed, he also revealed perhaps what could be come the future of motorway driving, fully autonomous with very little human engagement. The plan to remove classic cars from motorways initially but eventually all non-autonomous vehicles seems to be perhaps one of the most contentious points of the interview.

In a world that is fully reliant on vehicles, could it possibly be that in thirty years we would no longer be allowed to physically drive on a motorway but instead let a vehicle do the work for us?

This shocking idea shows the ideal way the government intends to send this country. Only on Tuesday did the government announce £100 million Research and Development funds for zero emissions development, along with other massive industry heads contributing millions. There are also plans to send a driverless vehicle on the roads by 2021, a mere three years ahead.

Mr O’Sullivan backed his point on removing classic cars by saying “Do you know what? Classic cars are not a lot of fun on a motorway if you have ever driven one.” Due to the lower speeds and the lack of technology in the car, in thirty years or so, it would be considered unsafe to have cars that cannot communicate with every other vehicle on the road, and while they may not be allowed on motorways in the not too distant future, there are no plans to ban them altogether, as “I [Mr O’Sullivan] think that classic cars are something people will continue to enjoy for many years to come. I can’t see a problem with continuing to operate classic cars.”

Do you think upping the speed limit will be good for the UK? Should classic cars be allowed on motorways? Let us know below

Motorists have been praying to the ‘Great God of Fossil Fuel’ for years to get car manufacturers to be a little more realistic about the emissions and MPG claims for their vehicles; we’ve always known that manufacturers massage the figures, but surely, we can work out for ourselves that a Range Rover won’t offer the same economy as a small Nissan, people just want honesty about it.

The Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP), which came fully in to force on 1st September 2018, has forced the manufacturers hand in to doing just that – being more realistic with the claimed figures, and in conjunction with the Real Driving Emissions (RDE) test, we should see at least semi-accurate figures being released.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), commonly known as car or vehicle tax, is generally based upon emissions, although the full regulations are quite complicated (and we simply don’t have the space for an in-depth review here), a shift toward more realistic emissions or MPG figures could, in theory, have a detrimental effect on VED.

We know that motoring and motorists are seen as an easy target for revenue generation – the last swathe of VED changes came as a result of the government not generating the expected revenue thanks in part to electric and hybrid vehicles, and that manufacturers are complying with their legislation and making more economical vehicles (less fuel duty, lower VED).

Changes were made to include some of the greenest cars – even zero emission vehicles are taxable if the list price is more than £40,000; it’s not purchase price, but manufacturer price, this also includes cars that are less than £40,000 but are then specced up with any additions or items of value, including higher specification engines.

Current regulations

Currently, any new diesel vehicle that doesn’t comply with the RDE2 emissions (which don’t actually come in to force until 2020) is subject to being categorised as one band higher than the official rating for the first year– to ‘encourage’ manufacturers to produce cleaner diesels, you’ll also pay a further £310 ‘luxury’ surcharge on anything costing over £40,000. (Petrol, diesel, hybrid or electric).

The point we’re making here is that the government has basically introduced new rates and legislation as a ‘catch all’ exercise to recoup some of their lost revenue. Now with the introduction of more and more electric and zero emissions vehicles, surely the government may introduce more methods to increase their revenue on the motorist.

The older vehicles (registered before 1st April 2017) will continue to pay VED at the old rate, based purely on CO2 emissions, but could a retrospective re-categorisation be introduced? After all, it’s a long-known fact that car makers have been a little reluctant in being completely open about the emissions of their vehicles, all the government would be doing is effectively charging the actual rate, rather than one based on fiction. Perhaps ‘the motorist’ should be thankful that we’ve had it so cheap for so long?

Differences

It’s very unlikely that a retrospective change will be imposed, but it does mean that there is a high chance that a model bought after 1st April of this year will undoubtedly cost more to tax than one purchased before that date, for the exact same model, purely because the figures used are more representative of real-world conditions. Yes, there have been campaigns by numerous consumer groups to highlight the extent of the problem, but with little regard given to the longer-term implications for the motorist – another financial hammer blow.

There is very little to be done – the first year’s VED is generally included in the OTR (On The Road) price of the vehicle, so with some negotiation, that can be negated to an extent, but going forward, it seems that the want for honest emission statements from the manufacturer will now be a need for further expenditure.

If you’re looking for a new car, then now is the right time to get yourself down to your favoured dealership as they try and clear the stockpile of cars that can’t be sold ‘as new’ due to the WLTP regulations – you’ll no doubt find a range of cars from all the main dealerships with significant discounts attached to the price.

It’s also worth noting that motorcycles don’t use the CO2 based taxation system, it’s based upon engine size, the most expensive being £88 for anything above 600cc, the cheapest being just £19 for the year (under 150cc) so if you’re looking for cheap VED vehicles, that are easy to park, cut a swathe through traffic and are generally congestion charge free, they are worth a consideration, if you are that way inclined.

What do you think about the new VED rate? Will the government retrospectively change categories? Are there any concerns for the future? Let us know in the comments.

If you drive a combustion vehicle in London, you could now receive a fine of £130 for driving on certain roads in the centre of London.

A new charge introduced yesterday in the centre of London means that any combustion engine, excluding hybrids, could face a £130 fine for driving in certain streets in London in peak times. This fine replaces the T-Charge to stop people altogether from driving in the streets, in an aim to reduce pollution and help improve air quality, in the already tightly packed centre of London.

A ‘pioneering’ scheme

The scheme has been hailed as a pioneering by Hackney and Islington Council, who are the first two to introduce the scheme. Councillor Claudia Webbe, of Islington Council, said: “We are proud to be leading from the front with Hackney in this pioneering scheme – the first of its kind in the UK.”

The aptly called “ultra-low emissions streets” are the first of their kind across the UK and with many more expected to grow as the government introduces methods to reduce emissions in city centres.

In this particular scenario, the restrictions only apply 7 am – 10 am and 4 pm – 7 pm, Monday to Friday in certain areas but it is expected to increase as time goes on. The scheme will be policed through Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) software, that detects the numberplates automatically and determines whether they are combustion or not through the vehicle database.

Historical issues

Complying with emissions standards has been a problem for many years with the UK government receiving a final warning from the European Commission in January this year. The warning gave them a period of time to implement a successful strategy before they are taken to the European Court of Justice and potentially imposed with large fines.

The UK has had dangerously high levels of nitrous oxide since 2011, leading to approximately 40,000 – 50,000 premature deaths a year. The shocking statistic shows why the European Commission is showing such an interest in bringing the UK to task, and while the UK is not alone in this, we are one in five of those under investigation. Alongside France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Romania, we have been tasked with providing a suitable solution to the problem.

Two-tier motoring

Amanda Stretton, motoring editor at Confused.com, described the scheme as the introduction to what is becoming a ‘two-tier system of motoring,” splitting up those who can afford it, and those who can’t but need to drive around. If this becomes the case in cities and towns across the country, then motoring will take a massive U-turn and become something only the super-rich in society can afford, much like the early motoring times.

She also commented on the replacement of an electric or hybrid car and told the BBC: “Our own study has shown that many people would like to own an electric vehicle but are put off by the cost but also the lack of charging infrastructure.”

Motoring has become a pricier business recently, with the highest petrol prices in four years and people are having to choose between feeding their families and driving to work due to the high price of petrol.

How will it work?

Currently, nine streets are affected by the restrictions and are Blackall Street, Cowper Street, Paul Street, Tabernacle Street, Ravey Street, Singer Street, Willow Street, Charlotte Road and Rivington Street.
While this may seem like a small proportion of places, if this scheme works, and reduces congestion and pollution, then it likely becomes a template for other streets across the country especially in places of high pollution.

At the moment, any combustion vehicle entering the area, aside from residents and local businesses, will receive an instant £130 fine. This will be policed through ANPR cameras and while it is unknown about the contestation of the fine, it is thought that it will be fairly strict. The main aim is to reduce pollution at peak times, like the school run and commuter times, not only to encourage people to cycle or walk but to stop those who do cycle or walk from breathing in too much pollution.

Feryal Demirci, the deputy mayor of Hackney, said: “Failing to act on poor air quality, which causes nearly 10,000 premature deaths across London every year, is not an option, and that’s why we’re being bolder than ever in our efforts to tackle it. We’re thrilled to be launching our ultra-low emissions streets – the first of their kind in the UK – which will reclaim the streets from polluting petrol and diesel vehicles, and improve the area for thousands of people every day.”

Do you think that having electric only streets is a good idea? How easy do you think this will be to enforce? Let us know below