Honda loses court case on Hybrid mileage

[Galo]

El shitto is gonna hit el fanno.
 
Never mind that Honda (along with everyone else) is required by law to use the US EPA estimates as its official fuel mileage figures, they lost this case.

http://wot.motortrend.com/civic-hybrid-owner-wins-small-claims-court-battle-against-honda-awarded-9867-164629.

Yeap, I can see the car companies turning around and suing the EPA for eveything they get sued for.

Whatta cluster fluk.....

[Rogue]

WTF is wrong with these people?  

Honda should appeal.

[phoenix]

page not found

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/honda-hybrid-lawsuit-heather-peters-wins_n_1248357.html

LOS ANGELES — Heather Peter's computer crashed under the onslaught of messages following her unique victory over Honda in small claims court – a win the California woman is hoping will lead other consumers to reject a class action settlement over defective hybrid cars.

Peters, who was at the center of a whirlwind as she welcomed camera crews to her home, said she has received more than 500 Facebook messages and had 6,000 hits on her website following a court decision awarding her $9,867 and finding Honda misled her into thinking her Hybrid could get 50 miles per gallon. She said the 2006 model, which she still owns, gets about 30 mpg.

Peters' win in small claims court was a unique end run around the class action process and set the stage for others to follow suit. She sees her victory as benefiting not just Honda owners but all consumers.

"To me this is really about the decline in customer service in America and how we have rolled over and accepted it for too long," she said. "People are mad as hell and they're not going to take it."

Class action lawsuits typically give small settlements to all members of the class. In the Honda suit, the company has offered $100 to $200 to each owner of an under -performing hybrid along with a $1,000 coupon to some toward purchase of a new car.

Peters, a former lawyer, said she is renewing her legal license after a 10-year lapse so she can consult with other Honda owners She said she is also posting all the paperwork from her small claims suit online as a guide for others contemplating such suits.

There appear to be many of them across the country, with Peters sharing dozens of e-mails sent to her by Honda owners who are opting out of the class action and filing their own suits.

But Professor Laurie Levenson of Loyola University Law School said Honda may have suffered something much worse than a possible flood of small claims actions.

"The worst part for Honda is they've been branded as committing fraud," she said. "That's not good for sales. It's a P.R. disaster and sometimes that costs more than the judgment."


One Honda owner in Texas was among those taking action.

"I have already sent in my letter opting out of the class action," said Darrell Stevens of Houston, Tex. who said in a phone interview that he has already filed his small claims action against Honda.

"The reason I'm doing this is it's just not fair what they're offering." he said. "I'm going to do what Ms. Peters did and present figures in court. I have no value left in the car. As soon as Ms. Peters won, there's no resale value for the car."

He said his hybrid gets 30 to 32 miles per gallon.

Honda said it will appeal Peters' judgment. She said she's confident she will win. She said more witnesses have been volunteering to help her, including a whistle blower from within Honda.

A legal expert sees Peters as in the vanguard of a consumer revolution on line

"What's new about this case is social networking," said Professor Howard Erickson of Fordham University Law School in New York.

"This is an example of how a revolutionary movement gets started," he said. "This is one individual fighting the powers that be and spreading the. Her website Don'tSettleWithHonda.com became a rallying point for dissatisfied Honda hybrid owners.

She has now decided to renew her legal license after a 10-year lapse in order to consult with other Honda owners on their legal actions.

Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Douglas Carnahan ruled Wednesday that the automaker misled Peters about the potential fuel economy of her hybrid car and awarded her $9,867, close to the maximum allowed by law.

"At a bare minimum Honda was aware that by the time Peters bought her car there were problems with its living up to its advertised mileage," Carnahan wrote in the judgment. He harshly criticized the company for making false promises it could not deliver.

Aaron Jacoby, a class action lawyer in Los Angeles, said Peters definitely put a new twist on small claims court. But he felt few people would have her dedication and the time to pursue a similar case.

"I just don't think it's going to take off," he said. "There are a lot of class action cases out there. It would be hard to make a dent."

Richard Cupp, a Pepperdine University professor who had predicted Peters' victory, said others will likely be inspired to follow her example.

"I remember her saying at the beginning that she wanted to start a small claims flash mob," he said. "And I think that's what she did."

A judge in San Diego County is due to rule in March on whether to approve Honda's class-action settlement. Members of the class have until Feb. 11 to accept or decline the deal.

Late Thursday evening, Honda issued a lengthy statement insisting that the Honda Civic Hybrid has the capability to achieve 50 miles per gallon or more "in real world driving conditions."

The statement by Honda spokesman Chris Martin also attached numerous letters of commendation from satisfied Honda customers.

"American Honda believes that the judgment in this case is a radical and unprecedented departure from California and federal law... we intend to vigorously appeal this decision."

Honda defended the claims made in their advertising, which they say was accurate when the vehicles were sold and remains accurate today.

[antvq]

I say good for her.   The class action was $100 to the car owners and over 8 million to the lawyers.      

[Cablebandit]

I say good for her.   The class action was $100 to the car owners and over 8 million to the lawyers.      

Yeah I saw that on AOTS last night.  At least somebody was using their noodle.

[Rogue]

She thinks she's helping consumers by bringing down a company that is trying it's best to meet EPA/CAFE/CARB mandated standards and is offering high mileage alternatives.

She probably floors the accelerator in her car first thing in the morning before warm up, ignores tire pressures, loads her trunk with junk, speeds in the highway, then wonders why she can't meet the mileage rating.  

Clueless, dumb, greedy, gold digger.  Her lawyer is the same.

[antvq]

She thinks she's helping consumers by bringing down a company that is trying it's best to meet EPA/CAFE/CARB mandated standards and is offering high mileage alternatives.

She probably floors the accelerator in her car first thing in the morning before warm up, ignores tire pressures, loads her trunk with junk, speeds in the highway, then wonders why she can't meet the mileage rating.  

Clueless, dumb, greedy, gold digger.  Her lawyer is the same.

Small claims.  No lawyers allowed.  

Oh, and if you read the article you will find that issues with the batteries kept her from driving in electric mode.   Also, as evidence she provided all sorts of data points to back up her claim.

Gold digging?  $9800 is Gold Digging?    


You own Honda or are you just really grumpy today?

[Giaka]

I read that the woman what won the case (a lawyer) wants everyone to bail on the class action lawsuit and go to small claims. She said if only 75% won it would cost Honda upwards of 2 billion.  Can Honda afford that?

[Rogue]

Gold digging?  $9800 is Gold Digging?    


You own Honda or are you just really grumpy today?

So why didn't she get the batteries warrantied?

Instead she wants to bring down Honda and she wants EVERYONE to do it?

You agree with this?  I don't because I don't know what her REAL driving habits are and there isn't much of a way to prove it.  Maybe Honda can take the car back and see if the batteries are defective.  Why sue the whole company?  We all know how tricky it is to truly meet the EPA rating in the real world.  You have to REALLY drive it carefully under ideal conditions.  

Remember the Prius fiasco?  There are so many people out there just looking to cash in and that has been proven time and time again.  How do you know this woman is above all that?  Her efforts are noble and she should be believed on the basis of a small claims victory?  Everyone sue Honda and get your part of the cash cow!  Why not?  

[sfalexi]

I think it'd be funny if Honda just says, "Screw it.  America sues too much.  Shut down shop.  We'll stick to the rest of the world."  I'm sick and tired of people suing all the time.  Maybe she really did do everythign right to try to get 50 mpg, but for me personally, I just assume EVERY commercial has that fine print at the bottom that says, "Results not typical" (which almost every commercial does).

Alexi

[Giaka]

I think it'd be funny if Honda just says, "Screw it.  America sues too much.  Shut down shop.  We'll stick to the rest of the world."

Would remove 90% of the boring factor in motoring in America.

[X1Glider]

She thinks she's helping consumers by bringing down a company that is trying it's best to meet EPA/CAFE/CARB mandated standards and is offering high mileage alternatives.

She probably floors the accelerator in her car first thing in the morning before warm up, ignores tire pressures, loads her trunk with junk, speeds in the highway, then wonders why she can't meet the mileage rating.  

Clueless, dumb, greedy, gold digger.  Her lawyer is the same.

Yeah, lots of variables there.  On the bike, I get 30 being a bastard and 40 being very nice.  In the Kia SUV, I get 17 being nice but 13 when floored during the daily commutes...11-12 with a dirt bike hanging off the back cruising down the interstate.

For me, this is more about not giving the lawyers a lot of easy money at the consumers' expenses.  It's the consumers that were expecting 20 mpg more, hoping to save on gas money.  

Let's just say for the sake of argument that her daily commute to work is 50 miles round trip andit was costing her an extra gallon of fuel each day.  That's approximately 3 bucks where I live.  261 work days later, that's $783 each year.  Over 5 years, the woman's extra fuel costs to get to work was then $3915.  Then there's weekend errands and visiting friends, maybe even a yearly lomg distance vacation in the car that could easily add another $500/year or $2500 over 5.  Now the total extra fuel is up to $6415.  Chances are that she'll keep the car a little longer now because who would buy a used one of these things, especially when a replacement battery for a "now old tech car" probably goes for $4000 installed.  So I really don't think being awarded nearly 10 grand is unwarranted.

But I understand where this could go.  As I've never once seen the advertised 21 mpg in my Kia over nearly 9 years, imagine if I and others like me were to sue over this.  In my Kia, over the past 100k miles, they would owe me 1904 miles worth of fuel at $3/gallon, which comes out to close to $336.  Multiply this by however many other Sorrento owners there are out there.  This could bankrupt a lot of companies.

[Cricket1]

I'm confused.

Doesn't the EPA grant the MPG ratings that the car MFG's MUST post on the window sticker? How does that make Honda liable? Shouldnt she be suing the EPA?

[darkstarmoto]

So why didn't she get the batteries warrantied?

Umm...Honda admits there is no way for the car to get 50MPG, hence the Class Action suit that was already in place. She just opted out of taking their pitiful "reimbursement" and went to small claims on her own. It's not like it's just her car...Honda knows it's mostly ALL of them from 06-08.

Quoted from LA Times:

"She said the fuel economy dropped below 30 mpg after a software update intended to prolong the life of the car's battery and improve performance was installed."

"Honda has acknowledged that the battery on the 2006 through 2008 Civic hybrids "may deteriorate and eventually fail" earlier than expected. When the battery pack can't be charged to full capacity, the car relies more on the gas engine and fuel economy suffers."

So Honda themselves made the situation worse with their own software update and using a battery pack that they are NOT covering under warranty.

I fail to see how that makes her the bad guy for not standing up for what she was promised when purchasing the car. On top of that now everyone knows the 06-08 Hybrids are crap and the trade or sale value is in the toilet. So she's out that money too.

[Rogue]

If the software update by Honda was designed to make the battery last longer, did Honda send a notice to all customers of their hybrid to let them know?

If this S/W update was designed to protect hybrid customers from premature battery replacement, then this is a good thing.  If the batteries failed too early, it may open up a whole rash of lawsuits again.  So damned if they do and damned if they don’t.   Where does it end?  

[phoenix]

a little background on EPA mileage numbers:

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06009.htm

The city and highway MPG estimates have been provided to consumers since the 1970s as a tool to help shoppers compare the fuel economy of different vehicles. Currently, EPA relies on data from two laboratory tests to determine the city and highway fuel economy estimates. The test methods for calculating these estimates were last revised in 1984, when the fuel economy derived from the two tests were adjusted downward—10 percent for city and 22 percent for highway—to more accurately reflect driving styles and conditions.

The city and highway tests are currently performed under mild climate conditions (75 degrees F) and use acceleration rates and driving speeds that EPA believes are generally lower than those experienced by drivers in the real world. Neither test is run with the use of accessories, such as air conditioning. The highway test has a top speed of 60 miles per hour, and an average speed of only 48 miles per hour.

Since the mid-1990s, EPA's emission certification compliance regulations have required the use of three additional tests which capture a much broader range of real-world driving conditions; specifically: high-speed, fast-acceleration driving and the use of air conditioning and colder temperature operation (20 degrees F). Not only do these conditions impact the amount of air pollutants a vehicle emits, they also have a significant impact on a vehicle’s fuel economy. However, they are not currently required to be used to measure fuel economy.

In my skeptical point of view, many hybrid cars are developed to achieve high economy numbers at or below 60 mph, while 95% or more of interstate driving is at speeds much higher than this.  The fuel economy numbers are bogus. but when that is the primary selling feature, I believe we all have the right to call them out on it.

[Kootenanny]

As I understand it, carmakers have to use mileage figures as documented during specified EPA test procedures.  I think it could be called "common knowledge" that those figures, obtained under ideal laboratory conditions, are seldom going to be achieved in the "real world."  Nonetheless, the published mileage figures SHOULD be good for comparison purposes, as they are (supposedly) obtained under identical conditions.

As I see it, a car that is advertised as getting 50 mpg had sure better get better mileage than any car advertised as getting 40 mpg.  Is this true in this case?  I think a part of the problem here is that carmakers may well be designing cars to get excellent mileage during the EPA test procedure, at the expense of good mileage in the real world (sorta like sportbike makers might tune their bikes for maximum peak HP at the expense of rideability, so they can advertise higher HP numbers...).  A car getting barely half the mileage it is rated for is definitely a sign of something wrong.

And beyond mileage, a car buyer might have an expectation they are being "environmentally conscious" by purchasing a hybrid.  The cars are advertised with this expectation, and I think a case could be made that this advertising itself is a bit misleading.  For example, I have never seen any hybrid car advertised as only getting the rated mileage in stop'n'go commuter traffic--but  it is obvious on the face of it that is where they're going to perform best (for extended highway travel, there is no way they're going to perform substantially better than a modern, efficiency-oriented ICE powered vehicle...).  For many hybrid buyers, I think ownership is as much about politics as anything else...and this brings a whole new set of issues into a lawsuit such as this.

[darkstarmoto]

If the software update by Honda was designed to make the battery last longer, did Honda send a notice to all customers of their hybrid to let them know?

If this S/W update was designed to protect hybrid customers from premature battery replacement, then this is a good thing.  If the batteries failed too early, it may open up a whole rash of lawsuits again.  So damned if they do and damned if they don’t.   Where does it end?  

Most likely no Honda did not send out notices to their customers (none that I could find online). As with most car companies they issue a Technical Service Bulletin to their dealerships which instruct them on what to do if a customer comes in and complains about a specific issue. The S/W update from what I have read on Honda forums appears to be just telling the car to run on the gas engine more often to lower the complications of the battery.  

You're right...damned if they do, damned if they don't BUT damned because they rushed a product to market without enough life testing to be sure their claims about the car could not be contested.

Cliff Note Edit: Honda knows they have defective batteries (costing about $4000) but instead of replacing those they do a $3 software update to hopefully extend the battery replacement beyond warranty period. In the meantime customer pays for this by getting MUCH lower MPG than advertised which was likely the reason they bought the car in the 1st place. Yeah that's fair.  

[Rogue]

So the plaintiff claims Honda “was aware” that her hybrid could not achieve the claimed 51 mpg.

Honda releases a statement saying it can achieve the rated mpg.  Is this after the S/W upgrade?  I don’t know.  Only Honda knows.  The EPA says it can so…..

Who are we to believe?  

[Justin]

This may be one suit where I actually side with the plaintiff. The car is not as advertised based on the evidence I see. She opted out of the class action lawsuit and used the small claims process that was available to her to get more.  The difference between 30 and 50 Mpg in costs can be huge for a commuter.

[Giaka]

This shit matters to real people working real jobs and spending real, hard-earned money on what the MFGs tell us they can deliver.

Fiesta was purchased as a commuter. Advertised to get 39 mpg. It gets 39 mpg like clock work. If it only got 35 would it bug me? No, if it only got 25 mpg would it bug me, hell yes.

[KenH]

The EPA mileage tests used to be run on a chassis dyno and the tires pull against a set loads according to vehicle weight. Don't know if that has changed. Aerodynamic drag is not a test factor.

No, automakers did not tune cars to excell at the EPA test cycles at the expense of real world performance and mileage. The tuned cars for minimum emissions during the emissions tests. At least, that's the way it was at first. After the first gas crisis in the early '70s and the government began requiring mileage to be posted, the automakers changed ring and pinion sets in an effort to do better with mileage ratings as a selling point. It was not unusual to see 2.73:1 axle ratios. Net effect was that Granny's 4500 pound station wagon was geared to run 160mph at 5000rpm. In the real world, at the then mandated 55mph speed limit, the engine was turning a pokey 1700rpm or so. This actually worked pretty well with 400+ cubic inch engines that made gobs of torque, but the next development in low emissions and fuel efficiency on the EPA tests was smaller displacement engines, some below 300 cubic inches, in the same 4500 pound cars. Such engines labored hard in the real world at 55mph, and it was not unusual for cars thus equipped to return 3-4mpg more at 90mph than at 55mph due to running in a more efficient portion of their torque curves.

For instance, I had a 1979 Catalina wagon with a 301, TH350, 2.73:1 axle, and 29-inch tires. 15-16mpg at 55mph, 18-19mpg at 90mph. A swap to 4.56 gears yielded  a bit slower engine rpm at 55 as the original ratio did at 90, and mileage at 55 jumped to 22-23mpg with no other changes. Other benefits of the gearing change were much improved acceleration, much improved highway passing performance, especially when pulling a 4000-pound camper, and a 40*F drop in transmission temperature in town. True 2.5-inch duals with a crossover in front of a pair of universal catalytic convertors, no mufflers (the convertors alone were fairly quiet), and swapping an electric fan for the stock engine driven fan bumped 55mph mileage to 26-27mpg. City driving increased from 12-13 to 16-17 mpg. Sure the car redlined at 95mph, but I never drove it that fast, anyway.

It's all about driveline set-up for a specific engine in a specific state of tune running on a specific fuel on a specific test that has little in common with real world driving. Don't even pretend that the engineers could not make these simple changes to improve real-world efficiency. Government mandates aren't about real world anything, they are about power and profit.

Another little known reason for inflated efficiency claims is that the automakers are very, very picky about what fuel is used for testing. No way they use E10 from the local station. The buy fuel from specific suppliers at specific geographic locations at specific times of the year to obtain the formulas that will provide the best test results, or they use a custom formula. For the most part, if the rest of us could run the same fuels, we'd see several mpg improvements in real world driving. For instance, my Olds returns 22-23mpg highway on E10, and 34-36mpg on E0 from adjacent pumps at the same station. The only reason I run E10 is they are occasionally out of E0, I fill up at about 1/4 tank, so even the E10 is really about E7.5.

[darkstarmoto]

^^good points.

An EPA official did testify that the car originally did get the rating that Honda published but also stated that manufactures are not required to use those numbers, they are just not allowed to publish anything higher. Therefore Honda could have used 45 or something to cover their butts, instead of course to make the car more attractive to consumers looking for the best mileage they went with the max.

Honda had just been sued for the exact same thing in 2005, apparently lesson not learned.

Also...hindsight being 20/20 I wonder if Honda is now feeling dumb for not just taking care of this themselves after paying out $8.5 million to lawyers who settled the class action suit and now their settlement to customers and all the potential small claims cases? They are of course planing to appeal the courts decision which will allow them to bring their super high dollar lawyers to defend their position. I wish I had that much money to throw away.

[atadaskew]

I too would be upset if my crap to drive Civic Hybrid got worse mpg than the much cheaper, much more fun, much longer lasting regular Civic.

[antvq]

So the plaintiff claims Honda “was aware” that her hybrid could not achieve the claimed 51 mpg.

Honda releases a statement saying it can achieve the rated mpg.  Is this after the S/W upgrade?  I don’t know.  Only Honda knows.  The EPA says it can so…..

Who are we to believe?  

Believe the lady that won.  She presented sufficient evidence to the courts to prove that the car did not come close to meeting the fuel economy she was promised.  

[Giaka]

They seemed to have figured it out with the abysmal numbers for the VFR1200. 

Come on now, they at least put a bigger gas tank on newest model year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OmegaSix]

Look...

Hybrids are basically a marketing device.

They're environmental disaster areas in and of themselves.

There's a little thing out there - something EVERYONE has been ignoring - called physics.

You move, accelerate, and decelerate X tons - you use Y energy.  

Capturing some of the heat energy produced during deceleration is really, really smart.  

But that's limited in what it can do.

Bottom line - no hybrid that has all the safety devices required, has the passenger carrying capacity desired, and the performance desired  is EVER gonna get more than 30 - maybe 35 MPG...

So, let's all call it what it is - smart technology being USED in a stupid way.

[Skee]

Regardless of the ramifications for Honda, I see the real victory here is for the common man versus the class action legal firm.

Up to now, the only people who really benefited from a class action suit were the lawyers.  The claimants got gift certificates or a nominal cash award.  The manufacturers were able to minimize their liability by hiring a team of top flight lawyers to adjudicate a best case settlement.

This approach completely changes the landscape.  Manufacturers are less able to mitigate their liability by manipulating the legal system.

And the class action legal firms get left out in the cold.

I for one like it.

[JSharp]

Would remove 90% of the boring factor in motoring in America.

There will always be Corollas and minivans.

[Kootenanny]

There's a little thing out there - something EVERYONE has been ignoring - called physics.

You move, accelerate, and decelerate X tons - you use Y energy.  

Capturing some of the heat energy produced during deceleration is really, really smart.  

But that's limited in what it can do.

Basically, you're correct.  And that's why a hybrid would make no sense for me, as almost all of my driving is on a highway or backroad; there is really no "traffic" here, and I don't commute anyway.

However, for stop'n'go city traffic, a hybrid would make a lot of sense.  Yes, you need the same amount of energy to move your vehicle around--but an internal combustion engine is a very inefficient way to generate that energy, especially in a conventional vehicle where the engine is always on, idling even when the vehicle is not moving, and using only a tiny fraction of it's peak output when it is.  And even under ideal conditions, only about 30% of the chemical energy in the fuel is actually converted to movement--the rest is wasted to the atmosphere as heat.  In contrast, an electric motor only uses energy when it's actually in use, and when it does, it is very efficient about it.  When the vehicle is stopped, no energy is wasted.  And energy expended can at least partially be recaptured by generative braking.  

Now, I know that the electrical energy being used by the electric motor was generated by the "inefficient" gas engine, but...well, for stop'n'go traffic, where a large proportion of the time is spent either sitting still or decelerating, having the ICE shut off for those periods will certainly allow much better efficiencies overall.  That's where I believe a hybrid certainly should be able to get far superior mileage than a regular ICE vehicle--and the reality is, a LOT of people use their cars under those conditions.  Of course, a true "plug-in" EV would be even better for stop'n'go traffic...

[KenH]

  Of course, a true "plug-in" EV would be even better for stop'n'go traffic...

Until you factor in the enivronmental destruction of battery manufacture, remanufacture, and disposal, fuel for electrical generation, the effect of widespread use of EVs, such as power shortages for other uses, the inefficiencies inherent in any process of energy transfer and/or conversion, etc. Look at the whole picture, and the bottom line is less pollution, environmental destruction, and social sacrifice in some places, more less pollution, environmental destruction, and social sacrifice in others. Recycle and reuse are not the answer. The only significant gain is for numbers of people to home closer to work or work closer to home.

[Kootenanny]

Until you factor in the enivronmental destruction of battery manufacture, remanufacture, and disposal, fuel for electrical generation, the effect of widespread use of EVs, such as power shortages for other uses, the inefficiencies inherent in any process of energy transfer and/or conversion, etc. Look at the whole picture, and the bottom line is less pollution, environmental destruction, and social sacrifice in some places, more less pollution, environmental destruction, and social sacrifice in others. Recycle and reuse are not the answer. The only significant gain is for numbers of people to home closer to work or work closer to home.

Well, there are environmental consequences of oil production and conventional auto manufacture; with some political will, electrical production could be made much cleaner; with a gradual change, the electrical infrastructure could be developed to handle the higher demand; and if you wanna talk about "inefficiencies inherent in any process of energy transfer and/or conversion," look no further than the abysmal efficiency rates of the conventional ICE.

I'm not a fan of hybrids, and I don't really want to drive an EV--but I am willing to look at the overall picture.  In some situations, hybrids ARE going to be more efficient than conventional ICE-powered vehicles, and ditto for EVs.  Yes, our infrastructure is currently set up to serve conventional vehicles, but that shouldn't be the main reason to stick with them; infrastructure can be changed (there was a time when there wasn't a gas station on every corner, and shops installed hitching rails out front...).

BTW, the original reason for the development of large cities was specifically for people to live closer to their work--at the time, that meant the factory, so the town would build up around the factory, and if you had several factories close together, soon you'd have a city.  And the only way this could happen was to have adequate transportation, because moving into town generally meant moving farther from the source of food, so food had to be shipped.  As personal transportation developed, though, it eventually became possible to live further from one's place of work--but by that time, agriculture itself had become an industry, and people didn't move back to the farm, they moved to "suburbs" or "bedroom communities."  Of course, now the trend is swinging back again, and people are once again relocating into urban centres...