During my recent holiday in the US, enjoying ‘gas’ at $2.50 a gallon (approx 40 pence per litre!), I took some time out and visited Nordstrom’s Automotive in South Dakota (www.nordstromsauto.com) - thanks to Benji Steffs for showing me around.
So many differences between their operation and the UK, Nordstrom’s rely mainly on their local customers for business, either through their sales teams based in the office or travelling locally, or their ‘u-pull-it’ facility, where customers come in, pay a flat rate and remove the parts that they want for their vehicles.
Difference to the UK, well many salvage parts operations can be up to 70% mail order, in some cases delivering worldwide - so have limited local customers.
The US also does not have the stringent environmental requirements that apply in the EU, no End of Life Vehicle regulations there!
They still have legal requirements to keep the land clean, and ensure that their hazardous waste (tyres, batteries etc) are removed to specialised operators, gas goes into their own tanks for re-use in their vehicles, and when the tanks are full each member of staff gets 10 gallons for their own vehicles. Oil keeps their heating system going in the winter.
Working conditions outside are very weather dependant, hot and dusty in the summer, cold and snowing in the winter. Consequently they have large indoor working and storage areas giving a working environment than many UK operations could only dream about!
Vehicles come from many sources, mainly insurers, and Nordstom’s make the decision on what they do with the vehicle – scrap it, use it for parts, or sell as repairable. They do not have restrictions like the Association of British insurers Code of Practice, so they can re-sell non-deployed air bags (under strict guidance), and they can section vehicles and sell these parts to body repair centres for insurance repair. I saw a front end section from a Honda Accord that had been cut at the base of the ‘A’ pillars and across the floor and sent to a body repairer, the repairer had then expertly removed the section of the front wheelhouse that they required for the repair and returned the rest of the front end section to Nordstrom’s for further sale/sectioning, paying for the parts that they removed.
The different standards in auto recycling is highlighted by my experience in the US, the standards set in the UK are much tougher, especially around the removal of unsafe vehicles and vehicle documentation, areas currently not mirrored elsewhere in the world. ELV regulations mean that the EU is leading the world on environmental and recycling targets, and the US show the benefit of using ‘green’ parts in automotive repair.
I believe that there will soon be a time where a global standard in auto recycling will begin to appear, taking the best of the UK, Europe and US standards and bringing a lasting benefit to the whole auto recycling industry.
This may take a few years to develop and bring to fruition, maybe start with a European Salvage Code and then work forward; as usual comments and ideas are welcome from all.
Salvage Wire
Helping Automotive recyclers become leaders in their industry
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Friday, 10 July 2009
Repair standards and how this could impact the Motor Salvage industry.
Repair standards and how this could impact the Motor Salvage industry.
20 years ago very few standards were in place in the motor vehicle accident repair industry, most body repair centres relied upon manufacturer approval or the support of local garages for their workflow.
Since then there have been enormous changes in the body repair industry, many bodyshops have closed their doors and those that have survived have done so on tightening profit margins whilst having to invest heavily in the business.
One of the latest investments in the UK is the Kitemark scheme from BSI British Standards, supported by Thatcham, the Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre.
This scheme is one of the very few in the marketplace that concentrates on repair standards rather than customer service standards, and is designed to develop a robust cross industry standard for the body repair industry, ensuring that vehicles damaged in accidents are repaired efficiently, effectively and safely by competent professionals working with the correct equipment and technical back up.
This scheme will drive up repair costs, well trained technicians will be able to demand increased salaries, repairers will have to finance their investment in training and equipment, and repair methods for some of the new vehicle construction techniques and exotic materials now appearing in motor vehicles will be more costly than some current methods.
When coupled with the current economic climate and severe downward pressure on vehicle values there is a strong possibility that more vehicles will be written off and disposed of as repairable salvage.
I am regularly asked about repair standards in the motor salvage marketplace, as once a vehicle moves into the UK salvage market it comes under the voluntary ABI Code of Practice for Motor Salvage, and this does not address repair standards.
So why not implement the Kitemark scheme for repaired motor salvage?
There are a number of very valid reasons for doing so, including:
Repair Standards and Quality, a vehicle repaired by a Kitemark approved repairer will have been repaired to a satisfactory standard by trained staff using the correct equipment, whereas a vehicle repaired in a salvage yard may not be repaired to a safe and satisfactory standard.
The vehicle will perform correctly in the worst-case scenario of another accident.
The vehicle has been repaired using correctly obtained parts, either new or second hand – i.e. not stolen or from an older vehicle.
It could be possible to have a process in place to remove the previous total loss marker from the vehicle following satisfactory repair
As in all cases, there are some compelling reasons for not implementing any initiative, including:
During the last eight years the motor salvage market has gone global!
Motor salvage is moving across borders in great numbers, a lot is going to Eastern Europe and then to Russia, some goes to the Middle East and Asia, and customers are even coming from China. A lot of these countries have much lower costs than the UK and our local salvage companies and repairers are finding it very difficult to compete, if you add the cost of repair standards to the UK salvage market then a lot of businesses will just cease to deal in this type of vehicle, leaving the way open for more salvage vehicles to be exported and could result in the closure of a number of UK based salvage businesses.
The Kitemark scheme is a voluntary, UK only, operation that has not been mirrored in other parts of the world, so a vehicle could be repaired at a UK repairer that does not have kitemark accreditation, or outside of the UK, to a high standard and put back into use quite legally.
All motor salvage dealt with by UK insurers should be categorised and recorded on MIAFTR (the Motor Insurance Anti Fraud and Theft Register), this data is then available to the general public through the various car data check schemes, if the customer decided to use these sources of information they would know the vehicle history and they can then make a choice - walk away or complete further checks on the vehicle if they wish, however if customers fail to use the information available then it is at their risk.
So how do we resolve this conundrum and look towards implementing sensible repair standards for salvage vehicles that will not cause significant harm to the motor salvage industry.
There are two areas that need to be focused on, and these involve salvage practices and repair standards:
The UK has the tightest salvage standards in the world – the adoption of the voluntary Association of British Insurers Code of Practice for Motor Vehicle Salvage has seen significant benefits to the UK, salvage categorisation should ensure that badly damaged vehicles are removed from circulation, and the steps taken to control vehicle documentation have significantly reduced motor vehicle fraud. Additional efforts with Motor Salvage Operators Registration, ELV (end of Life Vehicles) Licensing and Vehicle Identity Checks have only added to the controls in place to ensure that the general public are dealing with legitimate businesses and vehicles.
Unfortunately these controls are UK only, and there are no similar schemes in place anywhere around the world, so we need to look at the introduction of a European Salvage Code (ESC) that would offer similar benefits in the removal of vehicles from circulation and prevention of fraud.
Kitemark is too narrow and needs to widen its’ focus in the following areas.
The motor salvage industry must be included in the scheme, specifically with a view of:
Green Parts – use of second-hand parts in insurance and motor salvage vehicle repairs.
Parts standards – Setting the standards for quality of green parts and customer service.
Repair standards – setting the standard for quality repairs, enabling customers to purchase repaired salvage with confidence.
As with the ABI Code of Practice, Kitemark needs to be extended to the whole of Europe, and include repair standards, and sharing of information between member states.
To ensure full coverage Kitemark needs to include motorcycle and commercial vehicles.
Without this type of input and inclusivity there will always be ways of getting around the standards, and customers will suffer as a result. Additionally there is also the possibility that the Kitemark scheme would go the way of many other initiatives and fall apart within a few years if it fails to encompass some of these critical issues and close the potential gaps.
I appreciate that this cannot be implemented in a few months, and some of this could take many years, but the EU have already shown what can be done by implementing the End of Life Vehicle Directive (ELV) that is fully in place across all member states - Legislation that has set a standard and is being mirrored in other parts of the world, so lets set our sights high and work towards a consensus across the EU that promotes efforts to eradicate fraud, reduce the possibility of poor or unsafe repairs, and increases recycling by the sensible use of green parts in all types of vehicle repairs.
The UK motor salvage marketplace, by virtue of the controls already in place, should be at the head of any operation to drive up standards, an opportunity that should be grasped by all with an interest in the motor salvage industry, and a combination of the UK Motor Salvage Associations, Thatcham, Kitemark and the ABI would be an unstoppable force across Europe.
20 years ago very few standards were in place in the motor vehicle accident repair industry, most body repair centres relied upon manufacturer approval or the support of local garages for their workflow.
Since then there have been enormous changes in the body repair industry, many bodyshops have closed their doors and those that have survived have done so on tightening profit margins whilst having to invest heavily in the business.
One of the latest investments in the UK is the Kitemark scheme from BSI British Standards, supported by Thatcham, the Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre.
This scheme is one of the very few in the marketplace that concentrates on repair standards rather than customer service standards, and is designed to develop a robust cross industry standard for the body repair industry, ensuring that vehicles damaged in accidents are repaired efficiently, effectively and safely by competent professionals working with the correct equipment and technical back up.
This scheme will drive up repair costs, well trained technicians will be able to demand increased salaries, repairers will have to finance their investment in training and equipment, and repair methods for some of the new vehicle construction techniques and exotic materials now appearing in motor vehicles will be more costly than some current methods.
When coupled with the current economic climate and severe downward pressure on vehicle values there is a strong possibility that more vehicles will be written off and disposed of as repairable salvage.
I am regularly asked about repair standards in the motor salvage marketplace, as once a vehicle moves into the UK salvage market it comes under the voluntary ABI Code of Practice for Motor Salvage, and this does not address repair standards.
So why not implement the Kitemark scheme for repaired motor salvage?
There are a number of very valid reasons for doing so, including:
Repair Standards and Quality, a vehicle repaired by a Kitemark approved repairer will have been repaired to a satisfactory standard by trained staff using the correct equipment, whereas a vehicle repaired in a salvage yard may not be repaired to a safe and satisfactory standard.
The vehicle will perform correctly in the worst-case scenario of another accident.
The vehicle has been repaired using correctly obtained parts, either new or second hand – i.e. not stolen or from an older vehicle.
It could be possible to have a process in place to remove the previous total loss marker from the vehicle following satisfactory repair
As in all cases, there are some compelling reasons for not implementing any initiative, including:
During the last eight years the motor salvage market has gone global!
Motor salvage is moving across borders in great numbers, a lot is going to Eastern Europe and then to Russia, some goes to the Middle East and Asia, and customers are even coming from China. A lot of these countries have much lower costs than the UK and our local salvage companies and repairers are finding it very difficult to compete, if you add the cost of repair standards to the UK salvage market then a lot of businesses will just cease to deal in this type of vehicle, leaving the way open for more salvage vehicles to be exported and could result in the closure of a number of UK based salvage businesses.
The Kitemark scheme is a voluntary, UK only, operation that has not been mirrored in other parts of the world, so a vehicle could be repaired at a UK repairer that does not have kitemark accreditation, or outside of the UK, to a high standard and put back into use quite legally.
All motor salvage dealt with by UK insurers should be categorised and recorded on MIAFTR (the Motor Insurance Anti Fraud and Theft Register), this data is then available to the general public through the various car data check schemes, if the customer decided to use these sources of information they would know the vehicle history and they can then make a choice - walk away or complete further checks on the vehicle if they wish, however if customers fail to use the information available then it is at their risk.
So how do we resolve this conundrum and look towards implementing sensible repair standards for salvage vehicles that will not cause significant harm to the motor salvage industry.
There are two areas that need to be focused on, and these involve salvage practices and repair standards:
The UK has the tightest salvage standards in the world – the adoption of the voluntary Association of British Insurers Code of Practice for Motor Vehicle Salvage has seen significant benefits to the UK, salvage categorisation should ensure that badly damaged vehicles are removed from circulation, and the steps taken to control vehicle documentation have significantly reduced motor vehicle fraud. Additional efforts with Motor Salvage Operators Registration, ELV (end of Life Vehicles) Licensing and Vehicle Identity Checks have only added to the controls in place to ensure that the general public are dealing with legitimate businesses and vehicles.
Unfortunately these controls are UK only, and there are no similar schemes in place anywhere around the world, so we need to look at the introduction of a European Salvage Code (ESC) that would offer similar benefits in the removal of vehicles from circulation and prevention of fraud.
Kitemark is too narrow and needs to widen its’ focus in the following areas.
The motor salvage industry must be included in the scheme, specifically with a view of:
Green Parts – use of second-hand parts in insurance and motor salvage vehicle repairs.
Parts standards – Setting the standards for quality of green parts and customer service.
Repair standards – setting the standard for quality repairs, enabling customers to purchase repaired salvage with confidence.
As with the ABI Code of Practice, Kitemark needs to be extended to the whole of Europe, and include repair standards, and sharing of information between member states.
To ensure full coverage Kitemark needs to include motorcycle and commercial vehicles.
Without this type of input and inclusivity there will always be ways of getting around the standards, and customers will suffer as a result. Additionally there is also the possibility that the Kitemark scheme would go the way of many other initiatives and fall apart within a few years if it fails to encompass some of these critical issues and close the potential gaps.
I appreciate that this cannot be implemented in a few months, and some of this could take many years, but the EU have already shown what can be done by implementing the End of Life Vehicle Directive (ELV) that is fully in place across all member states - Legislation that has set a standard and is being mirrored in other parts of the world, so lets set our sights high and work towards a consensus across the EU that promotes efforts to eradicate fraud, reduce the possibility of poor or unsafe repairs, and increases recycling by the sensible use of green parts in all types of vehicle repairs.
The UK motor salvage marketplace, by virtue of the controls already in place, should be at the head of any operation to drive up standards, an opportunity that should be grasped by all with an interest in the motor salvage industry, and a combination of the UK Motor Salvage Associations, Thatcham, Kitemark and the ABI would be an unstoppable force across Europe.
Monday, 16 March 2009
Total Loss Register - Uk and the USA
MIAFTR – The UK Total Loss Register
The US has recently introduced legislation that protects consumers, auto auctions and dealers from motor related crime, legislation that enhances the professional standing of the motor salvage industry, combats vehicle crime and assists the US motor insurance industry.
With the support of the ARA, NADA, ASA and many others, Senator Trent Lott and a bipartisan list of colleagues have drivien total-loss disclosure legislation through congress.
Can the US learn from the experience of the UK Total Loss Register?
You could ask why the Motor Insurance Industry is so concerned about combating vehicle crime. Surely, the fact that there is crime shows the need for insurance products.
If crime was allowed to get out of hand then insurance would be a product that few could afford as insurers premiums reflected the need to make a profit, so insurers have a commercial need to keep crime levels under control and ensure that their products are competitively priced whilst being able to protect their customers who are unfortunate enough to become a victim of crime.
UK Insurers therefore work individually and collectively through the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to combat vehicle related crime.
The ABI is funded by, and represents the UK Insurance Industry, and has a number of programmes and codes of practice in operation. These codes of practice must be adhered to by all member companies of the ABI. In many cases, the various codes of practice are so successful that government legislation is not required, and there are situations where legislation is reliant upon the code of practice operating correctly.
One aspect of this effort to control vehicle related crime is the Motor Insurance Anti-Fraud and Theft Register (MIAFTR), administered on behalf of the ABI.
UK Insurers log the details of all motor insurance claims where a vehicle has been written off as a total loss, or where vehicles have been stolen and remain un-recovered on this database. The MIAFTR database now contains over 3 million individual claims records, and maintains links with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), Police National Computer and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA).
Identification of stolen vehicles enables Police Forces in the UK to identify the owner/insurer very quickly through the Police National Computer, and the development of mobile Number Plate Recognition systems enables the police to be pro-active in running checks on suspect vehicles.
The Vehicle Identity Check (VIC) is designed to detect and deter criminals from disguising stolen cars with the identity of written off or scrapped ones, and MIAFTR provides the platform for electronic transfer of data to VOSA who administer the VIC test.
MIAFTR is a programme available to the insurance industry only, so MIAFTR data also feeds the publically available HPI check. HPI have been checking the histories of used cars since 1938, and through their investigations have helped hundreds of thousands of people avoid purchasing cars that have been stolen, clocked, written off, or that have unpaid finance against them, saving them unnecessary costs and heartache.
MIAFTR is an important part of the insurance industry Code of Practice for the disposal of vehicle salvage. The code details the four categories of salvage, the handling of vehicles and (possibly as importantly) vehicle data and documentation. The code ensures that those vehicles too badly damaged to go back into use, including flood and fire damage, are broken for spares, treated as end of life vehicles, and the vehicle documentation is securely destroyed.
Vehicles deemed to be suitable for repair and re-use are also covered by the code, with the more heavily damaged vehicles coming under the statutory VIC check, which must be completed satisfactorily before vehicle registration documents are re-issued by DVLA. This is one case where statutory legislation is reliant upon a code of practice; here the correct operation of the Code of Practice for the disposal of Motor Salvage drives the categorisation and identification of vehicles that require a statutory test before they can be allowed back into use.
MIAFTR has been developed over a number of years into its current web based version. Development has been hampered however, by the many other companies who use the system, including motor insurers and government agencies that have required additional time to update their own processes and systems.
The US now has the opportunity to develop a clean sheet operation that can provide the highest quality data at the lowest possible cost with minimal administration, an opportunity not to be missed.
The rest of the world will be watching the US with interest, if the VIN Disclosure Legislation succeeds in setting up a successful nationwide system that sets the example for the rest of the world, politicians will be able to claim that they are tough on crime, there will be considerable benefits for consumers, motor salvage industry and motor insurers and it could even provide business opportunities for the companies involved.
The US has recently introduced legislation that protects consumers, auto auctions and dealers from motor related crime, legislation that enhances the professional standing of the motor salvage industry, combats vehicle crime and assists the US motor insurance industry.
With the support of the ARA, NADA, ASA and many others, Senator Trent Lott and a bipartisan list of colleagues have drivien total-loss disclosure legislation through congress.
Can the US learn from the experience of the UK Total Loss Register?
You could ask why the Motor Insurance Industry is so concerned about combating vehicle crime. Surely, the fact that there is crime shows the need for insurance products.
If crime was allowed to get out of hand then insurance would be a product that few could afford as insurers premiums reflected the need to make a profit, so insurers have a commercial need to keep crime levels under control and ensure that their products are competitively priced whilst being able to protect their customers who are unfortunate enough to become a victim of crime.
UK Insurers therefore work individually and collectively through the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to combat vehicle related crime.
The ABI is funded by, and represents the UK Insurance Industry, and has a number of programmes and codes of practice in operation. These codes of practice must be adhered to by all member companies of the ABI. In many cases, the various codes of practice are so successful that government legislation is not required, and there are situations where legislation is reliant upon the code of practice operating correctly.
One aspect of this effort to control vehicle related crime is the Motor Insurance Anti-Fraud and Theft Register (MIAFTR), administered on behalf of the ABI.
UK Insurers log the details of all motor insurance claims where a vehicle has been written off as a total loss, or where vehicles have been stolen and remain un-recovered on this database. The MIAFTR database now contains over 3 million individual claims records, and maintains links with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), Police National Computer and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA).
Identification of stolen vehicles enables Police Forces in the UK to identify the owner/insurer very quickly through the Police National Computer, and the development of mobile Number Plate Recognition systems enables the police to be pro-active in running checks on suspect vehicles.
The Vehicle Identity Check (VIC) is designed to detect and deter criminals from disguising stolen cars with the identity of written off or scrapped ones, and MIAFTR provides the platform for electronic transfer of data to VOSA who administer the VIC test.
MIAFTR is a programme available to the insurance industry only, so MIAFTR data also feeds the publically available HPI check. HPI have been checking the histories of used cars since 1938, and through their investigations have helped hundreds of thousands of people avoid purchasing cars that have been stolen, clocked, written off, or that have unpaid finance against them, saving them unnecessary costs and heartache.
MIAFTR is an important part of the insurance industry Code of Practice for the disposal of vehicle salvage. The code details the four categories of salvage, the handling of vehicles and (possibly as importantly) vehicle data and documentation. The code ensures that those vehicles too badly damaged to go back into use, including flood and fire damage, are broken for spares, treated as end of life vehicles, and the vehicle documentation is securely destroyed.
Vehicles deemed to be suitable for repair and re-use are also covered by the code, with the more heavily damaged vehicles coming under the statutory VIC check, which must be completed satisfactorily before vehicle registration documents are re-issued by DVLA. This is one case where statutory legislation is reliant upon a code of practice; here the correct operation of the Code of Practice for the disposal of Motor Salvage drives the categorisation and identification of vehicles that require a statutory test before they can be allowed back into use.
MIAFTR has been developed over a number of years into its current web based version. Development has been hampered however, by the many other companies who use the system, including motor insurers and government agencies that have required additional time to update their own processes and systems.
The US now has the opportunity to develop a clean sheet operation that can provide the highest quality data at the lowest possible cost with minimal administration, an opportunity not to be missed.
The rest of the world will be watching the US with interest, if the VIN Disclosure Legislation succeeds in setting up a successful nationwide system that sets the example for the rest of the world, politicians will be able to claim that they are tough on crime, there will be considerable benefits for consumers, motor salvage industry and motor insurers and it could even provide business opportunities for the companies involved.
Sunday, 8 March 2009
Recession?
The Motor Industry is claiming all sorts of bailouts and benefits from the government, but one part of the industry that is bucking the recession is used cars, especially those vehicles that customers are looking to downsize to.
Before Christmas 2008 many vehicles were struggling to reach trade prices at auctions, many are now up to £1,000 over trade, why?
Well the decreasing numbers of new vehicles being sold mean that there are smaller numbers of vehicles going through the part exchange route and onto used car forecourts, smaller numbers mean less stock, and with demand still being high for some vehicles prices are going up.
So if you have a Ford Focus sized vehicle, or a Fiesta equivalent and you are looking to change the car in the near term have a real good look at the market and make sure that any part exchange offer is in your favour, manufacturers are struggling to sell new cars, so discounts are high; dealers need good stock, so trade in values should be really positive. All of this equals a smaller amount of money for the customer to put in to change their vehicle.
Shop now, as prices may not hold!
Before Christmas 2008 many vehicles were struggling to reach trade prices at auctions, many are now up to £1,000 over trade, why?
Well the decreasing numbers of new vehicles being sold mean that there are smaller numbers of vehicles going through the part exchange route and onto used car forecourts, smaller numbers mean less stock, and with demand still being high for some vehicles prices are going up.
So if you have a Ford Focus sized vehicle, or a Fiesta equivalent and you are looking to change the car in the near term have a real good look at the market and make sure that any part exchange offer is in your favour, manufacturers are struggling to sell new cars, so discounts are high; dealers need good stock, so trade in values should be really positive. All of this equals a smaller amount of money for the customer to put in to change their vehicle.
Shop now, as prices may not hold!
Hire Cars
Just had a hire car for a few days whilst in N Ireland, booked a Ford Focus, but they did not have any in stock so i got upgraded to a Renault Laguna Sport Tourer, nice car that I enjoyed driving. One thing really niggled though, this 'Credit Card' key, a large plastic component that you put into a slot in the dashboard so you can start the car. Wouldn't be so bad if this was all you had to do, but you then need to push the Start button to fire the car up, and then when you want to stop you push the Stop button and then have to pull the card key out of the slot - why two separate actions to stop the car? I tried pulling the card out of the slot when the engine was still running, the car bleeped at me and a message on the dashboard told me that the card had been removed, but the engine did not stop. Great! On my normal car when i want to stop I just twist the key and pull it out, one smooth swift action. Why can't Renault do the same?
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Airbags: Re-use or destroy?
Under the Association of British Insurers Code of Practice for Motor Vehicle Salvage airbags and seat belt components in a total loss vehicle must not be re-used.
Why?
In the USA, (the most litigious society in the world) there are laws that allow this to happen. Businesses undertaking this work must be correctly licenced, registered, trained etc. and as long as they follow the rules set down they are perfectly entitled to take a non deployed airbag out of an accident damaged vehicle and put it into a vehicle of the same age, make and model.
Despite the statement in the code of practice, this is going on in the UK, but without the legislative support, training and regulation.
It is high time some areas of the salvage and insurance industries met to discuss a number of topics, including airbags and seat belt components. i know that these discussions may not come to anything, but at least the two sides would be entering into a dialog that could produce other benefits for both sides.
Who should initiate this, the BVSF, or MVDA, the ABI or some other body?
Why don't all the members of the aformentioned trade bodies put pressure on their executives to look for ways of moving forward, adopting a regulated approach to the re-use of airbags that could be supported by the ABI and the insurers that would ultimately lead to the amendment of the Code of Practice?
Who knows, this could even bring about fewer total loss settlements, saving insurance company money, but then that would be no good for the salvage industry as their supply of vehicles would fall.
And the insurance industry would come under pressure from vehicle manufacturers through the repair relationships they are building together.
But the environment would benefit, not as much raw material required to build increasing numbers of pyrothechnic devices, not as much damage to the environment as these devices are deployed as a car is dismantled and de-polluted, and if properly regulated, handled by trained technicians, correctly stored and fitted much increased health and safety in the motor salvage industry; and assurances that if the repaired vehicle is ever involved in another accident these life saving devices would do exactly what they are designed to do.
Hmm, a conundrum, what do you think?
Why?
In the USA, (the most litigious society in the world) there are laws that allow this to happen. Businesses undertaking this work must be correctly licenced, registered, trained etc. and as long as they follow the rules set down they are perfectly entitled to take a non deployed airbag out of an accident damaged vehicle and put it into a vehicle of the same age, make and model.
Despite the statement in the code of practice, this is going on in the UK, but without the legislative support, training and regulation.
It is high time some areas of the salvage and insurance industries met to discuss a number of topics, including airbags and seat belt components. i know that these discussions may not come to anything, but at least the two sides would be entering into a dialog that could produce other benefits for both sides.
Who should initiate this, the BVSF, or MVDA, the ABI or some other body?
Why don't all the members of the aformentioned trade bodies put pressure on their executives to look for ways of moving forward, adopting a regulated approach to the re-use of airbags that could be supported by the ABI and the insurers that would ultimately lead to the amendment of the Code of Practice?
Who knows, this could even bring about fewer total loss settlements, saving insurance company money, but then that would be no good for the salvage industry as their supply of vehicles would fall.
And the insurance industry would come under pressure from vehicle manufacturers through the repair relationships they are building together.
But the environment would benefit, not as much raw material required to build increasing numbers of pyrothechnic devices, not as much damage to the environment as these devices are deployed as a car is dismantled and de-polluted, and if properly regulated, handled by trained technicians, correctly stored and fitted much increased health and safety in the motor salvage industry; and assurances that if the repaired vehicle is ever involved in another accident these life saving devices would do exactly what they are designed to do.
Hmm, a conundrum, what do you think?
Monday, 11 June 2007
ELV - The Future
Utter the words ELV, and many will immediately picture a scrap yard full of old cars that have failed, been involved in a heavy impact, or are simply a gutted shell. But this is only part of the story.
The End of Life Vehicle Directive – 2000/53/EC (to give it’s full title) is a Europe-wide directive that was to be enforced in all member states by 21 April 2002. However, the UK did not bring the legislation into force until 3rd November 2003, and decided to take advantage of some flexibility within the directive so that the ‘last owner’ of the vehicle would be responsible for disposal of an ELV until the end of 2006. From 1st January 2007 this responsibility passed to the vehicle manufacturers bringing the UK in-line with other member states.
The directive includes various targets including: environmental practices in the motor salvage industry, the prohibition of the use of various heavy metals in vehicles and the removal of various hazardous fluids and components in a safe manner. Additionally the directive seeks to promote and encourage the development of markets for recycled parts.
The target causing most discussion is that 95% of a car (by weight) must be reused, recycled or recovered by 2015. This is leading to a lot of concern from many vehicle designers and manufacturers, as vehicles being built currently will not become ELV’s until after 2015 and so are subject to the target.
These, and other regulations in the directive, close the loop, from design and build, through sale, service and use, to disposal and recycling. The vehicle manufacturer is now responsible for the whole life of the vehicle, not just design and sales.
So what has changed in vehicle design and build? Plenty. The directive dictates that the use of Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and Hexavalent Chromium is now prohibited except in certain applications (i.e. batteries) according to a list that will be regularly reviewed. This ensures that these materials do not become shredder residues and are not incinerated or disposed of in landfills.
Manufacturers have also had to provide the industry with all requisite dismantling information with particular emphasis on hazardous materials and have to use component and material coding standards established by the Commission to identify each individual part for recycling purposes.
In the next 5-10 years designers will have to adapt to many issues including:
Greater environmental awareness resulting in lower vehicle weights and the use of alternative construction materials
New Legislation and industry standards, such as:
Pedestrian impact
Reduction of emissions in production and use of the vehicle
Further increased environmental awareness
Lower production costs
Shorter lead times from design to manufacture
Looking closer at the first issue, vehicle weight is a major contributor to emissions, but it’s not all environmental, lighter cars have enhanced dynamics – handling, braking etc. The quest is on for designers to find components that meet all their requirements: are lighter and stronger, relatively inexpensive, environmentally attractive to produce and also recyclable in 2015.
It’s a tough challenge. For example, polymeric glazing (plastic glass) will be in use by a volume manufacturer within the next five years. Yes, it will be lighter than glass, however the plastics recycling market is currently not as advanced as the market for glass, so this has the potential to negatively impact the drive towards the 95% target.
Many manufacturers are already designing plastic components to be built using recycled materials and in many areas this is being achieved. Moreover, developments in shredder technology are starting to separate more of the various vehicle parts, resulting in less shredder residue going to landfill or incineration. Ultimately though the success of these developments rests upon the creation of a suitable marketplace willing to purchase the materials produced.
Currently there is a lack of supply of ‘pure’ automotive recycled material meaning that motor manufacturers are using ‘household’ recycled materials (plastic drink containers etc.). Vehicle manufacturers would, I am sure, much rather have components direct from the motor vehicle recycling market than having to go out into other areas for their recycled material.
Outsourced parts are also a concern, as the manufacturer is ultimately responsible for the recyclability of all the components in their vehicles. Therefore they must ensure that all parts are recyclable within the terms of the ELV directive, i.e. do not contain any banned materials, are coded correctly and are also fit for the purpose for which they were designed.
The use of recycled material brings additional issues, including the availability and consistency of the material. It also requires the education of designers who may have little or no experience of working with recycled materials.
One area of vehicle recycling that is already well developed is scrap metal.
Currently, the scrap steel price is hovering around £95 per tonne, resulting in some Authorised Treatment Facilities buying ELV’s from the general public to realise the residual value left in each scrap vehicle. Recent developments in steel recycling have been driven by China’s growth and with business attempting to satisfy demand, I do not see this market shrinking. All signs point towards an increase in the value of scrap steel over the next few years. This is something insurers should consider as they give away their low value cat A and B salvage without realising the full residual value of the vehicle.
Concern remains over a number of areas both within and outside the ELV directive. For example, work must be done to develop effective recycled marketplaces. This has already started in the form of ongoing research, supported by the European Commission and many member states to investigate and develop recycled marketplaces and recycling processes in order to reach the 95% target. The majority of this work is occurring outside of the UK, mainly because other member states have more experience of ELV’s due to the earlier date of enforced legislation.
The Commission has recently reported on the ELV process, specifically completing an impact assessment on the targets contained within the directive. It has concluded that there is no need to change these targets, despite fears that the current target of 95% by 2015 is unattainable.
The report highlights that any reduction in the targets will end the development of technology to treat the waste and that confirmation of the 2015 target will assist in removing current blockages to innovation. The assessment goes on to support the ELV Directive because it has triggered technological development in ELV treatment and stresses that continued development of treatment technologies will bring substantial environmental benefits. The report emphasises that further support of technological development is still necessary and the Commission will encourage exchange of best practices between member states. Additionally, member states are now obliged to report on rates for reuse, recycling and recovery from 2006, with the results to be published by the Commission.
As the worldwide vehicle market expands over the coming years environmental concerns are only going to increase, leading many areas of the world to follow the example set by the European Commission. To demonstrate the scale of the problem, it is anticipated that there will be more vehicles scrapped in the next 23 years than in the previous 47. It doesn’t stop there though, there’s also the potential (when the after sales markets are included) for over 9 billion batteries, 54 billion tyres and 13 billion pyrotechnic devices to be scrapped between now and 2030.
The work already completed in Europe has made this region a world leader in motor vehicle environmental and recycling activities, creating business opportunities by setting high, but in my opinion, achievable standards
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)