Key questions surrounding exactly how self-driving vehicles should behave continue to divide UK public opinion. That’s according to early indications from the eagerly anticipated research by Reed Mobility, supported by the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund (RJRF).
Figures published in February show that 17% of survey respondents “strongly agreed” with the suggestion that self-driving buses should “drive at speeds that keep up with the traffic flow (within the speed limit), even if this increases risk to pedestrians”. On the other hand, 16% of participants “strongly disagreed”.
Reed Mobility – run by Prof Nick Reed, formerly Academy Director at the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory – was one of two winners of last year’s RJRF 150 Competition, splitting the generous £150,000 prize with Eloy. We’ve covered both extensively here on Cars of the Future, of course!
The RJRF is a grant making charity funded by a legacy from William Rees Jeffreys, remembered as ‘the British Ambassador for Good Roads’.
Self-driving comments
Chairman of the Trustees at the RJRF, David Tarrant, said, “We saw how the Reed Mobility project would enable citizens to have a stake in the governance framework for self-driving vehicle deployment, increasing the likelihood that self-driving vehicles genuinely deliver the safety, efficiency and accessibility benefits that are promised.”
Prof Nick Reed is one of the UK’s leading experts on self-driving
Reed Mobility founder, Nick Reed, added: “The support from the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund has enabled critical exploration into how self-driving vehicles should behave to align with the expectations of the communities into which they are deployed.
“These vehicles will potentially be sharing road space with motor vehicles and vulnerable road users and could dramatically improve road safety. However, in this safety critical context, the nature of self-driving vehicle operation behaviour is too important to be left solely in the hands of technology developers.
“This project will provide tools to enable manufacturers and regulators to engage meaningfully with the public over how the technology should operate. This means self-driving vehicle behaviour can be designed more appropriately and thereby ensure such vehicles are received more positively when they are deployed.”
More detailed findings are due to be published by Reed Mobility in June.
Huw Merriman chairs Transport Select Committee inquiry into self-driving vehicles on Parliamentlive TV
The Transport Select Committee inquiry into self-driving vehicles is a big deal for connected and automated mobility (CAM) in the UK, providing both scrutiny and publicity.
These committees are powerful, cross-party, and can require a response from the government. What’s more, The Transport Select Committee is one of the more high profile.
Since 2020, it has been chaired by Huw Merriman, MP for Bexhill and Battle in East Sussex.
Huw Merriman MP chairs Transport Select Committee inquiry into self-driving vehicles
“On this Committee, we always like to look into the future of science, technology and innovation, and we’re aware that the government has plans to see self-driving vehicles operational by 2025,” he said.
Self-driving inquiry on Parliamentlive
We’ve already covered Professor Paul Newman’s contribution and, of course, we recommend watching the full session on Parliamentlive TV. Who’s got the time though? So please read-on for further highlights from the morning session on Wednesday 26 October 2022.
Here, we cover the initial remarks by Steve Gooding, chief exec of The RAC Foundation, David Wong, senior technology and innovation manager at The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), and Professor Nick Reed, founder of Reed Mobility.
Transport Select Committee inquiry into self-driving vehicles, October 2022
Responding to the question “What is a self-driving vehicle?”, Wong explained that: “A self-driving vehicle, or automated vehicle, to use industry parlance, is a vehicle that’s fitted with an automated driving system capable of performing the entire dynamic driving tasks without human intervention within an operational design domain.”
Reed outlined the updated SAE levels 1-5, noting “They work from an engineering perspective, but they don’t work very well from a communications perspective.”
He went on to highlight the Law Commission’s useful user in charge (UIC) and no user in charge (NUIC) concepts.
Karl McCartney MP then asked about the likely timescale for owning a vehicle with automated systems.
Gooding currently runs a 2007 VW and a 2021 Triumph motorcycle, neither of which have automated features. “I’ll probably be replacing those when we are more comfortable with the electric revolution,” he said.
Reed has a VW Golf with some basic automated features like adaptive cruise control (ACC). “By 2025, it will be possible to use a vehicle that can do some of the driving for you, but I suspect it will be one that I can’t afford,” he said.
Wong highlighted the Mercedes S-Class, which meets the international UN standard for Level 3 conditionally automated driving, and is already available in the German market.
He went on to explain the differences between driver assistance and the higher levels of automation, and the critical issue of people confusing the two.
Gooding chipped in: “There is another way of describing this, which I find helpful, which is to think of it as three levels: hands off, eyes off, nod off.”
Self-driving public understanding
Merriman explained that the inquiry’s name was changed from “autonomous” to “self-driving” to help public understanding.
Changing tack, Ruth Cadbury MP questioned what transport challenges self-driving addresses which other technologies do not.
Reed identified three main areas: 1) safety, with the majority of today’s crashes having human error as a contributing factor, 2) efficiency, for example, from sharing vehicles rather than individually owning them, and 3) accessibility, for example, by making transport more accessible to people with disabilities.
Merriman then asked what testing had taught the industry, particularly in terms of potential pitfalls.
Wong highlighted the UK’s world-leading role in testing, with six CAM testbeds and more than 90 projects involving more than 200 organisations since 2014.
“The next step is to remove the safety driver altogether, whether the safety driver is inside the vehicle or remote,” he said. “Then we can progress to pilot deployment, which is what we’re seeing in the States, in California and also in Arizona. That’s the next challenge.”
Reed added: “One of key things we focus on is the public’s experience and appreciation of the technology – how this can be useful to them.”
Attention then turned to the wider societal and environmental benefits, and we’ll cover that another time soon.
Thatcham’s Avery and others comment on new Trust in Automation self-driving research
On 8 November, Thatcham, the UK motor insurance industry’s research centre, published the results of a new consumer survey on self-driving.
The Trust in Automation research was conducted by Opinion Matters, and involved questioning 4,000 car owners, half in the UK and half in America.
The headline finding was that 52% of UK drivers mistakenly believe that fully autonomous driving is possible today. In the US, this number rises to 72%.
Thatcham: 50%+ Brits think full self-driving is already here
Avery on automation
Matthew Avery, chief strategic research officer at Thatcham Research, commented: “Realising the government’s stated safety ambition for automated vehicles is dependent on driver education. This can’t just be lip service.
“With more than half of the UK public believing that autonomous driving is here today, the perception is racing ahead of the reality.
“This demonstrates just how much work needs to be done to set realistic consumer expectations of the first vehicles offering limited self-driving functionality, when they do become available.”
More encouragingly, 73% of UK respondent said they recognised the benefits of emerging automated driving technology.
Thatcham: 73% recognise the benefits of emerging automated driving technology
When asked what they consider to be the key benefits, the most popular option was improved safety (21%), followed by improving mobility for the elderly and disabled (14%) and reduced pollution (8%). Funnily enough, just 3% saw freeing up time to work as an advantage!
“Drivers are beginning to recognise that automation can deliver significant societal benefits in terms of safety, mobility and sustainability,” said Avery.
“However, with safety being such a high priority for drivers, accidents that do occur will be scrutinised under the media microscope, quickly eroding consumer confidence.”
Thatcham noted that, in November 2021, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) launched its guiding principles for automated vehicle marketing.
“Although safety is seen by many to be a key benefit of automation, trust and confidence need to be nurtured over time,” said Avery.
“It is vital that all industry stakeholders come together to instil trust in automation by ensuring motorists have a firm grasp of their legal obligations and the performance limitations.”
Gooding on self-driving
Commenting on the Trust in Automation findings, Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “This research provides some valuable insights for policy-makers keen to usher in the start of automated driving.
“Given all the hype surrounding automated car technology, particularly coverage of autonomous cars and taxis operating in the US, it isn’t surprising that some people think self-driving cars are already available on the UK market.
“The most important point that this research highlights is the need to ensure drivers understand the limits of automated options when they do first appear on UK roads, particularly where the system requires the driver to stand ready to re-take control.”
Intriguingly, Jonathan Dye, chair of the Automated Driving Insurer Group (ADIG), and head of underwriting at QBE, added: “In addition to education and collaboration across industry sectors, a key element will be the sharing of data and the transparency of what each specific vehicle is capable of at a point in time.
“With some models likely to have the self-driving technology as ‘optional’, or as an ‘over the air update’, meaning it would be possible to change a vehicle’s capabilities overnight, it’s imperative the driver has a full and clear understanding of the vehicle’s limitations post update and that they are adequately protected by purchasing an appropriate insurance product.”
As a final point, we regularly criticise hyperbolic self-driving headlines, so kudos to This Is Money for the informed and nuanced: “Half of motorists incorrectly think you can buy self-driving cars today raising fears some may dangerously overestimate capabilities of existing tech”.
On 15 June, the US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published the first of what will be monthly reports into crashes involving vehicles with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and more advanced automated driving systems (ADS).
ADAS
In brief, for SAE Level 2 ADAS equipped vehicles, 367 crashes were reported from July 2021 to 15 May 2022, resulting in six fatalities and five cases of serious injury. Tesla reported the most, followed by Honda and Subaru.
Cue the headlines, “Tesla Autopilot and Other Driver-Assist Systems Linked to Hundreds of Crashes” in the New York Times and “Teslas running Autopilot involved in 273 crashes reported since last year” in the Washington Post.
However, the United States Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) shed light on this, explaining that “Teslas are connected to the internet and automatically report if the car was in Autopilot when it crashed. Honda asks its drivers if they were using ADAS, so it relies on hard-to-verify personal accounts. Everyone else leaves it up to the police report.”
ADS
For ADS, nearly all the data comes from California. 130 crashes were reported from July 2021 to 15 May 2022. One resulted in serious injury. Waymo reported the most incidents, followed by Transdev Alternative Solutions and then Cruise.
Reaction
Dr. Steven Cliff, NHTSA’s Administrator, said: “The data released today are part of our commitment to transparency, accountability and public safety.
“New vehicle technologies have the potential to help prevent crashes, reduce crash severity and save lives, and the Department is interested in fostering technologies that are proven to do so; collecting this data is an important step in that effort.
“As we gather more data, NHTSA will be able to better identify any emerging risks or trends and learn more about how these technologies are performing in the real world.”
Autonomous vehicle safety consultant Philip Koopman welcomed the new data, commenting: “This is an excellent first step for transparency. All of us safety advocates can wish for more data and for less redaction, but this is a crucial step forward.
“If I had one wish, it would be to divide the narrative data field into two sections: public narrative and confidential narrative, and put huge pressure on the reporting companies to minimize things put into the confidential narrative.”
On this side of the pond, The Law Commission has recommended that automated vehicles must be able to record and store data necessary for incident investigation.
Thatcham, AXA and Mercedes-Benz Cars UK respond to Drive Pilot conditionally automated driving liability announcement
Mercedes-Benz made global headlines in late March by taking the unusual step of announcing that it will accept legal responsibility for accidents caused by its Drive Pilot automated lane keeping system (ALKS).
The move followed the announcement, last December, that it had become the first vehicle manufacturer (VM) to meet the international UN-R157 standard for a Level 3 system, capable of “conditionally automated driving”.
Conditionally automated driving
Mercedes-Benz Cars UK was quick to emphasise that this currently only applies to Germany. “The system must safely perform the dynamic driving task when activated,” it said.
“However, the driver still has duties in public road traffic even during conditionally automated driving. It is true that they are allowed to temporarily turn away from traffic in Germany; however, they must, for example, resume the driving task at any time when requested to do so by the system.”
That sounds innocuous but it’s a major step on the road to self-driving. In cars equipped with this tech – reportedly to be available first on the new £83,000 S-Class – in Germany, where 13,000km of motorway are approved for Level 3, the car can do the driving. Just take that in.
In the UK, Thatcham is leading the development of a consumer safety rating to support the safe adoption of Automated Driving Systems (ADS).
Matthew Avery, Director of Research at Thatcham
Matthew Avery, Director of Research at Thatcham, commented: “We’re pleased that Mercedes have made that statement, but it has to be seen in context. Firstly, the announcement was made for the German legal system, so you have to look at the legal onus on the driver to maintain control and be responsible.
“From a UK perspective, the recent Highway Code changes clarify that a bit more. It’s fairly clear within the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act (AEV Act) that the VM will ultimately be liable if their system is seen as being at fault.
“It comes back to understanding who was driving at the time of collision, and we’re not so happy that the data part is still slightly ambiguous. VMs are required to record who was driving at the time of the collision. However, it’s not clear that the data will be available in every collision, or how that data will be accessible to the insurer.
“What the Mercedes statement does do, which is helpful, is it gives confidence to the consumer that if something goes wrong, somebody will be there to pick up the bill.”
Doug Jenkins, Motor Technical Risk Manager at AXA Insurance UK
Doug Jenkins, Motor Technical Risk Manager at AXA Insurance UK, agrees. “On paper, the liability is clear,” he said. “But I think there is some work still to do – together – on how it would play out in practice.
“Let’s think about what happens in a claim: You’re lucky enough to be given one of these cars as a fleet vehicle and unfortunately you get sideswiped. There might well be a sticker on the windscreen with the number of an accident management company or fleet manager.
“The person who takes the first notification call will run through a script. They’ll ask what happened and you might say “They clipped me and took off the wing mirror”, you’re unlikely to say, “It was an issue with their lane assist system”.
“If it’s a sub-£5,000 claim, an accident management company might well just authorise the repair and arrange it via one of their approved repair centres. Job done. This Mercedes announcement means interfering with that very efficient process.
“We will need to develop the process of sign-off and how the costs are charged back – of course, these things will come as we get deeper into the deployment of automated vehicles.
“We’ve recently clarified our cover for electric vehicles (EVs), looking at things like cables trailing and chargers blowing up. These are new eventualities, but it’s just a case of changing the wording to respond to new customer needs.”
Please note: a version of this article was first published by the Institute of the Motor Industry’s MotorPro magazine.
Industry letter to UK Prime Minister calls for primary legislation to seize global self-driving opportunity.
The top brass from 17 major UK businesses have jointly written to Prime Minister Boris Johnson calling for the Government to announce primary legislation for automated vehicles (AVs) in the Queen’s Speech on 10 May.
The broad coalition consists of representatives from the self-driving sector – AECOM, Aurrigo, Conigital, Wayve and Westfield Technology Group – the insurance sector – Admiral, the Association of British Insurers (ABI), AXA, Thatcham Research and Zego – the tech sector – Coadec, techUK and Virgin – the finance sector – firstminute capital and Eclipse Ventures – and supermarket groups ASDA and Ocado.
Legal framework for self-driving
Together, they call for a comprehensive legal framework for the safe and sustainable deployment of AVs, citing economic and societal benefits including improved road safety and reduced emissions.
Sky News concluded that: “The letter contained a veiled warning to ministers, including the business secretary, that time was running out to keep pace with rival regulatory frameworks.”
Notably, in Germany, 13,000km of motorway are already approved for Level 3 automated driving.
The letter quotes statistics from the Connected Places Catapult – the government’s innovation agency for the transport industry – including “an export potential worth £10.9bn by 2035.”
Dougie Barnett, Director of Customer Risk Management at AXA UK, commented: “As one of the largest motor insurers, AXA is keen to support, promote and enable the take-up of automated technology on UK roads.
“AVs would provide significant societal benefits, including safer, cleaner and more accessible roads and, via the development of the technology, would support SMEs scaling up and subsequently levelling-up throughout the UK.
“However, the development of self-driving technology needs to be underpinned by a robust legal and regulatory framework, which prioritises the safety of all road users.
“With this letter, we are urging the Government to announce primary legislation for AVs, ensuring safety remains at the heart of their development and deployment as well as advancing the benefits they bring to society.”
Self-driving legislation letter
The letter, dated 21 April 2022 and titled “Primary Legislation for Automated Vehicles”, was addressed to PM Boris Johnson and cc’d to Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport, Trudy Harrison MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport (DfT) and Kwasi Kwarteng MP, Secretary of State at the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The full text reads…
Dear Prime Minister,
We write from across industry to highlight the benefits of automated vehicles (AVs) to the UK and call on the Government to announce primary legislation for Automated Vehicles in the upcoming Queen’s Speech. We welcome the extensive work of the Law Commissions of England and Wales, and Scotland, who have collaborated with industry to propose a comprehensive legal framework for the safe and sustainable deployment of AVs.
The UK has a unique opportunity to be a global leader in the development and deployment of AVs, or self-driving vehicles. This technology is the most exciting innovation for transport in decades and has the potential to level-up every corner of the UK, improve the country’s productivity, create jobs, reduce emissions, improve road safety, and bolster opportunities everywhere.
The industry has the potential to unleash economic growth across the whole of the UK. The global market for AVs is predicted to be worth £650bn by 2035, of which the UK is estimated to gain £41.7bn, creating 49,000 highly skilled green jobs in 2035, and a further 23,000 jobs from AV technologies. There is also an export potential worth £10.9bn by 2035 [according to the Connected Places Catapult Market Forecast For Connected and Autonomous Vehicles].
Beyond the significant economic opportunity, this transition is essential to meet the Government’s Net Zero target. Self-driving electric vehicles could greatly reduce congestion, pollution and fuel consumption. In addition, they offer huge opportunities for an increase in safety and reduction in road deaths. Research shows that a shift to AVs could bring a 93% reduction in accidents by 2040. And since road accidents are the leading cause of death among those aged 15-29, many thousands of lives are likely to be saved.
We urge the Government to consider the benefit this can bring to people’s everyday lives across the country too. Automated mobility has the potential to better connect rural communities and provide people with better access to opportunities. For example, a visually impaired person who can’t drive or navigate public transport easily will be able to stay connected to their friends and family via a self-driving mobility service. AVs also mean goods, like our everyday groceries, can be moved around the country more efficiently and safely, supporting the green transition of the last-mile delivery market which is predicted to be worth £44bn by 2025.
It is crucial that we unlock this technology and create a safe regulatory framework for people across the UK. This is a critical year in the development of this technology, as we see more examples of AVs moving closer to deployment. The Government needs to introduce legislation this year, to ensure the UK remains a world leader in AVs, and continues attracting investment to the UK. We are aware that other countries are looking to legislate this year and we strongly recommend that the UK maintains its global stance in this industry.
We would be pleased to discuss any of the above and look forward to continued engagement with the Government as the regulatory framework for the safe use of self-driving technology evolves.
Yours Sincerely,
Claudio Gienal, CEO, AXA UK&I Alex Kendall, Co-founder and CEO, Wayve Josh Bayliss, CEO, Virgin Group Prof. David Keene, CEO, Aurrigo Cristina Nestares, UK CEO, Admiral Matthew Avery, CEO, Thatcham Research Julian Turner, CEO, Westfield Technology Group Don Dhaliwal, CEO, Conigital Limited Dom Hallas, Executive Director, Coadec Tim Steiner OBE, CEO, Ocado Group Brent Hoberman, Co-founder & Executive Chairman, firstminute capital Sten Saar, CEO, Zego Seth Winterroth, Partner, Eclipse Ventures Andy Barker, COO, AECOM Julian David, CEO, techUK James Dalton, Director of General Insurance Policy, ABI Simon Gregg, Senior Vice President – E-Commerce, ASDA
Looking ahead to conditionally automated driving, owners need to understand their car’s capabilities and their responsibilities
As cars get ever more connected and assisted driving features on the road to conditionally automated driving (see the updated SAE Levels), drivers are ever harder pushed to find all the right buttons.
Peter Stoker, Chief Engineer at Millbrook test track, made the point in our interview last year, saying: “If you buy a new car, you should read the manual, but how many people do? Especially with Covid, more cars are being delivered with minimal interaction – it’s a case of “there’s the key, where’s the station?”
Automated driving capabilities
Just last week, Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, had this to say about changes to The Highway Code related to self-driving: “Vehicle manufacturers and sellers will have a vital role to play in ensuring their customers fully appreciate the capabilities of the cars they buy and the rules that govern them.”
Quite so. Unfortunately, no matter how thorough the handover, settings get forgotten and drivers find themselves reaching for the good old owner’s handbook. Which makes this eye-catching research by Scrap Car Comparison all the more worrying.
The salvage specialist analysed the owner’s manuals for 100 of the UK’s most popular vehicles. It found that Audi has by far the heftiest, with the R8 being longest at 616,064 words, followed by the e-tron at 603,649 words, both, incredibly, three times longer than the Ford F-Series in third at 194,305 words.
Audi R8 has the longest manual according to Scrap Car Comparison
To put that into perspective, at an average English silent reading speed of 238 words per minute, both the R8 and e-tron manuals take over 40 hours to complete, comparable to Tolstoy’s titanic tome, War and Peace.
At a mere 76,944 words, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is well under half the size of the 163,225-word Ford Focus manual.
Top 10 longest vehicle manuals
Rank
Vehicle Make & Model
Manual Word Count
Average Time To Read
1
Audi R8
616,064
43 hours 9 minutes
2
Audi e-tron
603,649
42 hours 16 minutes
3
Ford F-Series
194,305
13 hours 36 minutes
4
Ram Pickup 1500
177,196
12 hours 24 minutes
5
Audi A3
174,181
12 hours 11 minutes
6
Volvo XC40
171,457
12 hours
7
Volkswagen ID.4
168,060
11 hours 46 minutes
8
Jeep Gladiator
163,857
11 hours 28 minutes
9
Ford Focus
163,225
11 hours 25 minutes
10
GMC Sierra
158,194
11 hours 4 minutes
The shortest manuals list is dominated by two-wheelers, with the Vmoto Super Soco CPX electric scooter taking top spot, with only 2,834 words. Only three cars made the shortest manuals top 10 – the Range Rover Evoque, Nissan Leaf and VW Polo.
Range Rover Evoque has shortest car manual according to Scrap Car Comparison
Top 10 shortest vehicle manuals
Rank
Vehicle Make & Model
Manual Word Count
Average Time To Read
1
Vmoto Super Soco CPX
2,834
11 minutes
2
Honda NSC 110 Vision
12,146
51 minutes
3
Honda CB125F
15,029
1 hour 3 minutes
4
Range Rover Evoque
16,526
1 hour 9 minutes
5
Honda PCX125
21,083
1 hour 28 minutes
6
Nissan Leaf
21,541
1 hour 30 minutes
7
Yamaha NMAX 125
22,152
1 hour 33 minutes
8
Honda SHi 125
23,438
1 hour 38 minutes
9
Yamaha Ténéré 700
28,685
2 hours
10
VW Polo
31,897
2 hours 14 minutes
In addition to reading length, the study also used the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score to rank the accessibility of each manual.
It found the McLaren 765LT supercar manual to be the most difficult to digest, with a Flesch-Kincaid score of 44.3, requiring the equivalent of a college-level education to understand it.
McLaren 765LT manual the most difficult to digest according to Scrap Car Comparison
The Vauxhall Crossland X and BMW 2 Series completed the top three for impenetrability, all with an 18+age suitability rating.
Top 10 hardest to readvehicle manuals
Rank
Vehicle Make & Model
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score
Age Suitability (years)
1
McLaren 765LT
44.3
18+
2
Vauxhall Crossland X
44.5
18+
3
BMW 2 Series
45.06
18+
4
Ferrari 812 Superfast
45.35
18+
5
Vauxhall Grandland X
45.64
18+
6
Range Rover Evoque
45.65
18+
7
Ford Ranger
45.83
18+
8
Honda Jazz
46.38
18+
9
Nissan Frontier
46.88
18+
10
Mercedes GLC
47.89
18+
At the more accessible end of the spectrum, Tesla’s Model Y was found to be the easiest manual to understand, scoring 76.92 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale, suitable for those aged 12-13 and above.
Tesla Model Y manual the easiest to digest according to Scrap Car Comparison
Toyota also did well, taking second and third spots with its Tacoma and Tundra manuals.
Top 10 easiest to readvehicle manuals
Rank
Vehicle Make & Model
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score
Age Suitability (years)
1
Tesla Model Y
76.92
12-13 years
2
Toyota Tacoma
76.53
12-13 years
3
Toyota Tundra
76.42
12-13 years
4
Chevrolet Bolt EV
74.48
12-13 years
5
Fiat 500
73.97
12-13 years
6
Honda NSC 100 Vision
73.42
12-13 years
7
Porsche 911 Turbo S
72.55
12-13 years
8
Ford Mustang Mach-E
72.07
12-13 years
9
Kia Sportage
69.86
13-15 years
10
Audi Q2
69.82
13-15 years
Dan Gick, Managing Director at Scrap Car Comparison, commented: “Vehicle owner manuals are a great resource which can teach you not only how to get the most out of your car, but also how to maintain your vehicle so that you can drive it safely.
“While some seem to get it right in terms of reading length and accessibility, other manufacturers may need to think about whether they’re making their manuals overly complex.”
