UK Diesel Emission Claims.

[trevskoda]

Have the manufacturers sought to deceive anyone? I don't think so! IMO, the big car makers are getting away with nothing as they met the letter (even if not the spirit) of the law and merely exploited a loophole (to the benefit of their customers, who paid less VED).

In a 1975 speech, economist Charles Goodhart noted, "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." This has morphed into what is known today as Goodhart's Law, and often cited as "Any measure ceases to be a good measure once it becomes a target." Goodhart's Law applies here as much as anywhere else.

Here's a hypothetical illustration of Goodhart's Law: let's assume that a diktat is issued that an increasing percentage of vehicles a manufacturer produces must be "zero emission" year on year. The penalty for non-compliance is (say) a fine of £15,000 for every ICEV over the allowed proportion. Now, the manufacturers can produce an EV at a net cost cheaper than the £15,000 fine (if we don't consider the batteries). So, it makes sense to make EVs that they cannot sell and they produce enough EVs with tiny batteries (or make the batteries an option) to keep themselves in compliance. The manufacturer is happy because they can keep producing the ICEVs that they can sell and production volume has increased. The legislators are happy because an increasing number of cars produced are EVs and so can claim political kudos. However, the actual number of EVs sold (as opposed to manufactured and/or registered) is tiny, but they've met the target [and helped destroy the environment by creating 'graveyards' full of cars that nobody wants (just like in China), and in reality achieved the opposite of what the legislation intended in the process]. See the linked YT below for more on Goodhart's Law...

So, what did those 'naughty' 'diesel gate' manufacturers do? The regulations rewarded them for achieving low emissions under specific test conditions and didn't then check whether that was typical across the operational envelope. That measure thus became a target to be minimised even at the expense of real-world emissions. The legislation/testing was thus at fault, not the manufacturers (who merely followed 'standard business strategy'). The rules actively encouraged manufacturers to do what they did, yet it is they rather than the rule makers who are paying.

I would like to point out that the graveyards of cars <ev> in china is fake, most were and are steet hire cars or ins damaged cars, not everything you reed on the net is as it seems.

 

[GeoffL]

I would like to point out that the graveyards of cars <ev> in china is fake, most were and are steet hire cars or ins damaged cars, not everything you reed on the net is as it seems.

While many are from shared car schemes, those schemes were set up in response to offered subsidies and 'investment opportunities' and subsequently dumped as they weren't wanted -- just like the shared bicycle schemes that preceded the shared EVs. However, many of those graveyard cars were registered by the manufacturers and just dumped -- for example the approximately 10,000 BYD Neta Vs (all with the seat wrapping still intact and less than 31 miles on the clock) that feature in the opening sequences of the linked video. However, they arose, China has several EV graveyards where unwanted cars are left to rot -- unwanted cars that only exist because of policies that fell foul of Goodhart's Law...

 

[merl]

Have the manufacturers sought to deceive anyone? I don't think so! IMO, the big car makers are getting away with nothing as they met the letter (even if not the spirit) of the law and merely exploited a loophole (to the benefit of their customers, who paid less VED).

In a 1975 speech, economist Charles Goodhart noted, "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." This has morphed into what is known today as Goodhart's Law, and often cited as "Any measure ceases to be a good measure once it becomes a target." Goodhart's Law applies here as much as anywhere else.

Here's a hypothetical illustration of Goodhart's Law: let's assume that a diktat is issued that an increasing percentage of vehicles a manufacturer produces must be "zero emission" year on year. The penalty for non-compliance is (say) a fine of £15,000 for every ICEV over the allowed proportion. Now, the manufacturers can produce an EV at a net cost cheaper than the £15,000 fine (if we don't consider the batteries). So, it makes sense to make EVs that they cannot sell and they produce enough EVs with tiny batteries (or make the batteries an option) to keep themselves in compliance. The manufacturer is happy because they can keep producing the ICEVs that they can sell and production volume has increased. The legislators are happy because an increasing number of cars produced are EVs and so can claim political kudos. However, the actual number of EVs sold (as opposed to manufactured and/or registered) is tiny, but they've met the target [and helped destroy the environment by creating 'graveyards' full of cars that nobody wants (just like in China), and in reality achieved the opposite of what the legislation intended in the process]. See the linked YT below for more on Goodhart's Law...

So, what did those 'naughty' 'diesel gate' manufacturers do? The regulations rewarded them for achieving low emissions under specific test conditions and didn't then check whether that was typical across the operational envelope. That measure thus became a target to be minimised even at the expense of real-world emissions. The legislation/testing was thus at fault, not the manufacturers (who merely followed 'standard business strategy'). The rules actively encouraged manufacturers to do what they did, yet it is they rather than the rule makers who are paying.

Similar to what's been happening WRT the water industry.
Government fines the water companies by the ton for sewage pumped into rivers and WCs realize the fines are cheaper than actually treating sewage so into rivers goes the 5hit, the WCs satisfy investors and the gov makes lots of money from fines. Everyone's happy and both parties turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room.
Ultimately the fines were set too low, if you're a clinic you'd say deliberately.

 

[colinm]

As nearly every major manufacturer has been fined for fitting some sort of cheat, then there's likely to be a case to answer for all of them.

 

[Robmac]

Have the manufacturers sought to deceive anyone? I don't think so! IMO, the big car makers are getting away with nothing as they met the letter (even if not the spirit) of the law and merely exploited a loophole (to the benefit of their customers, who paid less VED).

In a 1975 speech, economist Charles Goodhart noted, "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes." This has morphed into what is known today as Goodhart's Law, and often cited as "Any measure ceases to be a good measure once it becomes a target." Goodhart's Law applies here as much as anywhere else.

Here's a hypothetical illustration of Goodhart's Law: let's assume that a diktat is issued that an increasing percentage of vehicles a manufacturer produces must be "zero emission" year on year. The penalty for non-compliance is (say) a fine of £15,000 for every ICEV over the allowed proportion. Now, the manufacturers can produce an EV at a net cost cheaper than the £15,000 fine (if we don't consider the batteries). So, it makes sense to make EVs that they cannot sell and they produce enough EVs with tiny batteries (or make the batteries an option) to keep themselves in compliance. The manufacturer is happy because they can keep producing the ICEVs that they can sell and production volume has increased. The legislators are happy because an increasing number of cars produced are EVs and so can claim political kudos. However, the actual number of EVs sold (as opposed to manufactured and/or registered) is tiny, but they've met the target [and helped destroy the environment by creating 'graveyards' full of cars that nobody wants (just like in China), and in reality achieved the opposite of what the legislation intended in the process]. See the linked YT below for more on Goodhart's Law...

So, what did those 'naughty' 'diesel gate' manufacturers do? The regulations rewarded them for achieving low emissions under specific test conditions and didn't then check whether that was typical across the operational envelope. That measure thus became a target to be minimised even at the expense of real-world emissions. The legislation/testing was thus at fault, not the manufacturers (who merely followed 'standard business strategy'). The rules actively encouraged manufacturers to do what they did, yet it is they rather than the rule makers who are paying.

I can only assume that the VW/Audi case was flawed then? and the average payout of £2,120 to 91,000 claims should therefore be paid back?

 

[Robmac]

I can only assume that the VW/Audi case was flawed then? and the average payout of £2,120 to 91,000 claims should therefore be paid back?

...perhaps I should add - all the more reason to claim!

 

[Steve and Julie]

Just checked our Citroen relay can't claim

 

[mark61]

Wasn't able to make a claim for my van when I checked, never looked into why not though, and it's 50/50 if I would of, not that a payout is to be sniffed at, but I'm of mixed opinion over the issue.

But, I will be pushing for a bigger discount next time I'm in the market for a new van seeing as I haven't claimed.

 

[Tim120]

As nearly every major manufacturer has been fined for fitting some sort of cheat, then there's likely to be a case to answer for all of them.

It was interesting at the time of the VW/Audi news that all the other manufacturers kept quiet instead of advertising their vehicles as being clean(er).

 

[Peisinoe]

I have a claim going through at the moment through Leighday.co.uk.

Very much doubt if the UK will get anything as we have a weak government unlike USA where they were told to buy them all back

 

[Robmac]

Very much doubt if the UK will get anything as we have a weak government unlike USA where they were told to buy them all back

Some claims have already been paid in the UK.

 

[GeoffL]

I can only assume that the VW/Audi case was flawed then? and the average payout of £2,120 to 91,000 claims should therefore be paid back?

This seems yet another example of our perverse legal system. The judiciary seem to have re-interpreted the legislation after the fact. AFAICT, the manufacturers abided by the letter of the law as written. However, the judiciary seems to have ruled that what was written was not what was intended and judged according to their interpretation of intent rather than the actual text of the legislation -- and relied upon after-the-fact testing conducted other than as prescribed by the legislation to support their verdict...

Those who are now suing the auto manufacturers have already benefitted from paying a lower VED, so perhaps they should be required to pay the VED difference to the Treasury before being eligible to claim? (just sayin')

The worst thing about this is IMO is that it's happening right when the European automotive industry needs the funds to develop the "zero emission" vehicles the flawed "net zero" policies demand. The "blame and claim" bandwagon is hammering European manufacturers, denying them the funding to be competitive, while Chinese manufacturers benefit (unfairly IMO) from massive state subsidies -- obtained in part by 'cheating'. Hence European manufacturers aren't competing with China on a level playing field -- yet another string to the bow that's destroying western democracy? (again, just sayin')...

 

[Robmac]

This seems yet another example of our perverse legal system. The judiciary seem to have re-interpreted the legislation after the fact. AFAICT, the manufacturers abided by the letter of the law as written. However, the judiciary seems to have ruled that what was written was not what was intended and judged according to their interpretation of intent rather than the actual text of the legislation -- and relied upon after-the-fact testing conducted other than as prescribed by the legislation to support their verdict...

Those who are now suing the auto manufacturers have already benefitted from paying a lower VED, so perhaps they should be required to pay the VED difference to the Treasury before being eligible to claim? (just sayin')

The worst thing about this is IMO is that it's happening right when the European automotive industry needs the funds to develop the "zero emission" vehicles the flawed "net zero" policies demand. The "blame and claim" bandwagon is hammering European manufacturers, denying them the funding to be competitive, while Chinese manufacturers benefit (unfairly IMO) from massive state subsidies -- obtained in part by 'cheating'. Hence European manufacturers aren't competing with China on a level playing field -- yet another string to the bow that's destroying western democracy? (again, just sayin')...

Sorry, but I don't really pretend to understand this. Are you saying that the manufacturers didn't fit devices meant to deceive? If so what were these devices for? - I really don't understand the technology involved and don't pretend to.

I'm not really into blame and claim myself usually, in the "he offended me please can I have some cash" sort of claims or tripping over a kerb and suing the local council. But if the big boys ARE playing dirty then they are fair game.

But if as you suggest they are not, surely a competent lawyer would tear the case against them apart?

Lower VED? Had people known they were buying a vehicle with higher emissions and attracting a higher VED charge, they may have chosen to not buy that vehicle in the first place, it's just another factor to be considered when looking at vehicles.

 

[colinm]

Sorry, but I don't really pretend to understand this. Are you saying that the manufacturers didn't fit devices meant to deceive? If so what were these devices for? - I really don't understand the technology involved and don't pretend to.

I'm not really into blame and claim myself usually, in the "he offended me please can I have some cash" sort of claims or tripping over a kerb and suing the local council. But if the big boys ARE playing dirty then they are fair game.

But if as you suggest they are not, surely a competent lawyer would tear the case against them apart?

Lower VED? Had people known they were buying a vehicle with higher emissions and attracting a higher VED charge, they may have chosen to not buy that vehicle in the first place, it's just another factor to be considered when looking at vehicles.

Many manufacturers knew exactly what they were doing, and that was breaking the law. The big one for me is that German authorities reported to the Italian government that Fiat where blatantly breaking the law, then it got hushed up.

 

[Robmac]

Many manufacturers knew exactly what they were doing, and that was breaking the law. The big one for me is that German authorities reported to the Italian government that Fiat where blatantly breaking the law, then it got hushed up.

Yes, my perhaps simplistic understanding is that the manufacturers set the vehicles to read differently under test conditions to what they would read on the road, and that to me is just wrong.

 

[GeoffL]

Sorry, but I don't really pretend to understand this. Are you saying that the manufacturers didn't fit devices meant to deceive? If so what were these devices for? - I really don't understand the technology involved and don't pretend to.

AFAICT, they did not fit devices intended to deceive -- they didn't need to. Modern cars are computer controlled (drive by wire) and what used to be controlled by mechanical means is now controlled by software. That software was configured (together with hardware adjustment) to optimise emissions when the vehicle was being driven in the way prescribed by the emissions tests. If you or I had driven the car in exactly that manner, it would have produced the same emissions as those obtained during testing. However, if you or I drove the car in any other manner, the emissions would probably have been worse. In many ways, this is the same as with real life -- driving with a heavy right foot creates more emissions than driving with a light one!

The big one for me is that German authorities reported to the Italian government that Fiat where blatantly breaking the law [...]

This is a new one for me. However, some research suggests that the reporting happened after the American Environmental Protection Agency carried out independent testing not in accordance with the Euro standard to which VAG cars were manufactured (and so sparked the entire 'dieselgate' scandal). The Germans retaliated by noting that Chrysler/Fiat had gone further by programming their systems to turn off exhaust treatment under certain conditions. The Italian government then carried out its own inspections and found there was no case to answer.

Germany accuses Fiat of using illegal emissions device - govt documents

Germany found unusual increases in the emissions of four Fiat Chrysler vehicles, and Berlin therefore accuses the Italian-American carmaker of using an illegal device to switch off exhaust treatment systems, German government documents showed on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

 

[Robmac]

AFAICT, they did not fit devices intended to deceive -- they didn't need to. Modern cars are computer controlled (drive by wire) and what used to be controlled by mechanical means is now controlled by software. That software was configured (together with hardware adjustment) to optimise emissions when the vehicle was being driven in the way prescribed by the emissions tests. If you or I had driven the car in exactly that manner, it would have produced the same emissions as those obtained during testing. However, if you or I drove the car in any other manner, the emissions would probably have been worse. In many ways, this is the same as with real life -- driving with a heavy right foot creates more emissions than driving with a light one!


This is a new one for me. However, some research suggests that the reporting happened after the American Environmental Protection Agency carried out independent testing not in accordance with the Euro standard to which VAG cars were manufactured (and so sparked the entire 'dieselgate' scandal). The Germans retaliated by noting that Chrysler/Fiat had gone further by programming their systems to turn off exhaust treatment under certain conditions. The Italian government then carried out its own inspections and found there was no case to answer.

Germany accuses Fiat of using illegal emissions device - govt documents

Germany found unusual increases in the emissions of four Fiat Chrysler vehicles, and Berlin therefore accuses the Italian-American carmaker of using an illegal device to switch off exhaust treatment systems, German government documents showed on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

From what I have read the software was programmed to give lower readings under test conditions taking various things into account such as the steering not being used and other factors which would indicate the vehicle is being tested, in other words not a real life road situation. so I doubt (but do not know for sure) that you or I could ever achieve the emissions achieved under test conditions?

I don't care really, I will either get a payout or I won't but if I do I certainly won't feel guilty as it will have been through judicial review which is good enough for me. If I don't then I've lost nothing.

At the end of the day, I doubt we will ever know the full facts behind these cases, we live in a corrupt world! I daresay that the lawyers have already made enough out of the VW/Audi cases to cover their expenses for the rest though, and some.

 

[GeoffL]

From what I have read the software was programmed to give lower readings under test conditions taking various things into account such as the steering not being used and other factors which would indicate the vehicle is being tested, in other words not a real life road situation. [...]

... but the actual conditions specified for the tests required by the legislation. The legislation required the official emissions figures to be obtained under precisely those -- not 'real world' -- conditions. Of note is the flawed testing has been acknowledged and mitigated under Euro 6, which requires both laboratory and 'real world' testing: implicit admission that the previous testing regime was at fault ...

 

[Robmac]

... but the actual conditions specified for the tests required by the legislation. The legislation required the official emissions figures to be obtained under precisely those -- not 'real world' -- conditions. Of note is the flawed testing has been acknowledged and mitigated under Euro 6, which requires both laboratory and 'real world' testing: implicit admission that the previous testing regime was at fault ...

I think we could go round and round with this.

I see what you are saying, I really do. But surely the vehicle has to pass under testing conditions without a computer telling it to and then reverting back afterwards?

Otherwise isn't it a bit like passing the MOT with a Cat fitted and then removing it afterwards?

 

[GeoffL]

I think we could go round and round with this.

As you say, we could go round and round with this.

I see what you are saying, I really do. But surely the vehicle has to pass under testing conditions without a computer telling it to and then reverting back afterwards?

Otherwise isn't it a bit like passing the MOT with a Cat fitted and then removing it afterwards?

Not really. The programming remained as was at the point of testing -- there was no 'reverting'. It's no worse than passing the MOT emissions test where the system is configured to not permit full power when the transmission is disconnected (i.e. under MOT test conditions) but have full power (or even a selectable high power mode -- like "M" or "Sport" mode) available under normal driving conditions. It's just like motorsport where each constructor seeks to obtain advantages over their competition -- often by stretching the rules to near breaking point. Just like that, the answer is to adjust the rules to ban the undesired practice, not to penalise people for doing what was perfectly legal at the time.

Just consider the position of car manufacturers: they all knew the rules were flawed and could be gamed to obtain substantially lower than 'real-world' emissions ratings to make their cars more attractive. Any manufacturer who didn't tweak their systems to take advantage of this would be at considerable disadvantage; and so they all did it -- pretty much had to -- even non-European manufacturers who needed to be competitive in Europe.