Audi 'lied' about safety testing of vehicles(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Audi 'lied' about safety testing of vehicles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27392157
7 comments
To those saying "it was the dealers, not Audi" I would say that becoming a dealer (in the UK at least) for a brand like Audi is not a simple matter of just applying to stick the Audi/VW badge up over the door.
Audi have a responsibility to vet their official dealers. It's the expectation here.
So it was the dealers directly, but since they are acting as Audi's representatives, I'd consider Audi to be culpable also.
I don't know about UK, but in US I have a blast every time I go to a dealership cause of all the fibbing and BS I hear. Of course it's not every salesman, but it happens a lot. One time I was buying a Dodge minivan and I was using the safety rating which I had compared earlier as a reason it should pay even less. The salesman told me I was wrong, that it had the best safety rating cause the steel was thicker! He even said I should check on his computer! I mean this is like poker level stuff. I have heard the best stories when buying cars - like about hidden underground ICBM launch sites where I work, alien abduction, crazy stuff about Denver airport, how one guy had been a sniper or spy or something - I love it, it cracks me up inside. I expect UK dealerships to be similar.
Well, we have strict advertising and trading standards laws.
I imagine that some simple hidden camera work would be enough to make UK agencies take action - perhaps fake customers of their own - and then take legal enforcement.
I am kind of surprised that "regulatory enforcemen as a service" does not exist. Many complaints to the UK ad regulator come from competitors in the same industry.
The UK government department with responsibility for business got into some trouble when they issued a leaflet about "dirty tricks" - which included (if I remember correctly) 'dumpster diving' to get information. (This would have been before 2003 and probably before 2000, bt my web searching is too weak to find references.)
I imagine that some simple hidden camera work would be enough to make UK agencies take action - perhaps fake customers of their own - and then take legal enforcement.
I am kind of surprised that "regulatory enforcemen as a service" does not exist. Many complaints to the UK ad regulator come from competitors in the same industry.
The UK government department with responsibility for business got into some trouble when they issued a leaflet about "dirty tricks" - which included (if I remember correctly) 'dumpster diving' to get information. (This would have been before 2003 and probably before 2000, bt my web searching is too weak to find references.)
You can't possibly vet someone that well. Audi may indeed have the responsibility to take action against this dealer and make things right, but the dealer's behavior shouldn't tarnish the image of the company.
Yes, but as mentioned in the article, concerns had been raised five months before the BBC investigation. Which suggests that Audi only care about being caught.
The BBC title is misleading. The article is clear that it was British Audi _dealers_ that lied about the cars having done the Euro NCAP safety tests.
"Audi's UK head office falsely claimed that the entire Audi range was Euro NCAP safety tested". So not just the dealers?
The BBC has click baity headlines throughout. Notice the quote marks around "lied", which means that the BBC is reporting that someone told them that Audi lied. Which is, no doubt, a true statement regardless of whether Audi did or not.
Telegraph uses the same construction:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10828885/Audi-sales...
The use of quotation marks is grammatically and journalistically correct.
An impartial news organization should not report the accusations of third parties as fact; it should present them for what they are.
You will see the same thing in coverage of court trials. Prosecutors are wont to make many bold accusations, many of which will be found to be false or unsubstantiated. It is imperative that journalists present these as mere accusations, and quotation marks are an effective way of doing so.
An impartial news organization should not report the accusations of third parties as fact; it should present them for what they are.
You will see the same thing in coverage of court trials. Prosecutors are wont to make many bold accusations, many of which will be found to be false or unsubstantiated. It is imperative that journalists present these as mere accusations, and quotation marks are an effective way of doing so.
A "lie" requires intent as per the response that "Audi UK said there had not been any deliberate intent to mislead". Audi dealers did make false claims which were misleading. You would need something in writing, like an email for example, to provide the intent and then uncover the "lies".
It has nothing to do with what Audio did or didn't do. The BBC is quoting what a third party said to them, a constant theme with modern reporting.
"Audi lied to me," said man.
"Audi lied to me," said man.
The BBC is accurately using quotes because they are quoting something. That's good, especially since the quote is from a BBC programme (BBC Watchdog - a populist consumer affairs programme). That programme will operate under strict BBC guidelines and so if they claim that some part of Audo is lying it is more credible than some random man claiming it.
The problem is not with the quote marks, but with the BBC using its own programs as a source of news.
This is a reasonable example but they do it all the time. This cross-promotion is annoying and I'm surprised the BBC news seems happy to allow it to continue.
The problem is not with the quote marks, but with the BBC using its own programs as a source of news.
This is a reasonable example but they do it all the time. This cross-promotion is annoying and I'm surprised the BBC news seems happy to allow it to continue.
> The problem is not with the quote marks, but with the BBC using its own programs as a source of news.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Although separate from BBC News, much of the work done by the BBC Watchdog team constitutes investigative journalism. Standard procedure is for revelations to be publicised in advance of the show to drive interest in the show.
The number of other major news outlets reporting these revelations suggest they are certainly newsworthy.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Although separate from BBC News, much of the work done by the BBC Watchdog team constitutes investigative journalism. Standard procedure is for revelations to be publicised in advance of the show to drive interest in the show.
The number of other major news outlets reporting these revelations suggest they are certainly newsworthy.
>witnessed nine out of 10 dealers from around the country falsely claim
Wait? Car dealers lying? The biggest official BMW dealear in my state got a lot of bad press when he sold BMW's that had been in an accident and were repaired as 'PREMIUM Houde Selection' cars...
Wait? Car dealers lying? The biggest official BMW dealear in my state got a lot of bad press when he sold BMW's that had been in an accident and were repaired as 'PREMIUM Houde Selection' cars...
Not that much further
> "Forty-eight of the 50 dealers I spoke to told me directly that it had been put through the Euro NCAP programme and it had a five-star rating."
> "Forty-eight of the 50 dealers I spoke to told me directly that it had been put through the Euro NCAP programme and it had a five-star rating."
I know of two cases where Audi dealers acted unethically with people I know in South Africa. Is there a worldwide pattern?
Why does the A7 in the picture have an A5 badge on it? Car names in other countries are so confusing.
Because it actually is an A5 and not an A7. At least, that holds for the Benelux.
I do understand the confusion, as they are very similar at first glance.
I think it's an A5 Sportback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A5#Sportback_.288TA.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A5#Sportback_.288TA.29
Because it is A5 everywhere. A5 and A7 are different models, not different names for same model. And A5 also has an 5 door model available, although it is not sold in states.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A5
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A5
Audi(and heck even BMW, Merc and non lux makers) sell many more variants of their vehicles in Europe. Estates/Avants/Station wagons are the SUV of Europe. Its much easier to make 30+ mpg in one of those than a body on frame V-8 suburban...
Title is misleading, it was the dealers.
The Audi trademark is used on Audi dealers and therefore Audi as sensible organisation should check and influence how their cars are represented. To the average consumer there is little or no difference between "Audi" and, for example, "Blade Audi"
My experience in the UK (with BMW and various VW brands) are that if you interact with a dealer then the car company phones you a few days later to ask you to rate the dealer - so it is pretty clear that they are separate organisations.
Most dealership staff pretty much plead with you to say nice things to the car company when they call - or at least if there are any problems you tell them first.
Most dealership staff pretty much plead with you to say nice things to the car company when they call - or at least if there are any problems you tell them first.
I can't speak to the British auto dealer experience, but in the US, salespeople are often undertrained and don't actually know enough about what they're selling.
Volkswagen can't really push its influence onto the salespeople directly, it would need to go through the dealer.
Volkswagen can't really push its influence onto the salespeople directly, it would need to go through the dealer.
Audis in the UK have a persistent safety flaw; it's suspected to be something to do with the glass used in the windscreen (windshield for our US readers). When you sit in the driving seat of an Audi, all other road users become invisible.