Driving Economics

[simoid]

I can't sleep, and as you do, I've had a look around the gassing station with my mind wandering.

One of my thoughts was the economic benefits of a better/highly trained driving population.

They will be numerous - and here are a few I can suggest from the top of my head:

Faster journey times and less congestion, as drivers make better progress (fewer 40inNSLers, fewer people belting up to the back of slower moving traffic on motorways then slamming on the anchors) leading to more time spent working by the population.

Better fuel consumption from better awareness of speed - my mates who are more competent drivers are all able to get better MPG than those who are less enthusiastic about driving.

So, does anyone think there could be any mileage (boom, boom!) in compulsory driving refreshment every 10 years, even branded as 'ecodriving' or something? Obviously I'm asking people who will instinctively say 'yes' to make the roads better, but I mean in general terms, could it ever be a worthwhile investment?

A few million hours of driving instructors time, to save and create a few million quid somewhere else?

Am I in fantasy land? (Probably )

[R0G]

What you suggest might have some effect in so far as a driver could demonstrate that they are capable of driving a particular way but that does mean that they will drive that way most of the time

The other stumbling block is that any compulsory assessing of the general driving populus will lose votes for the Govt in power

[WhoseGeneration]

R0G said:

The other stumbling block is that any compulsory assessing of the general driving populus will lose votes for the Govt in power

This is often trotted out but why that assumption?
Observe how surveys reveal what drivers consider bad practice by other drivers.
Then, who would want to be piloted by one who was awarded an ATPL forty years ago, with no further checks?
Why the difference?
For both, pilot or driver, mistakes can kill.

Edited by WhoseGeneration on Thursday 25th August 22:07

[roachcoach]

WhoseGeneration said:

Observe how surveys reveal what drivers consider bad practice by other drivers.

Usually it is exactly the same things they do. Just take a look at the figures for speeding.

A high percentage admit it and a similarly high percentage think people drive too fast and want something done about it. It's well known that a pretty common viewpoint is that everyone going slower than you is a bimbling fool and everyone going faster is a lunatic....

There is not much in life that brings out a stronger "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude than driving.

[7mike]

roachcoach said:

Usually it is exactly the same things they do. Just take a look at the figures for speeding.

A high percentage admit it and a similarly high percentage think people drive too fast and want something done about it. It's well known that a pretty common viewpoint is that everyone going slower than you is a bimbling fool and everyone going faster is a lunatic....

There is not much in life that brings out a stronger "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude than driving.

Spot on.

Everybody thinks everybody else needs more training.

[R0G]

7mike said:

Spot on.

Everybody thinks everybody else needs more training.

The biggest problem is that no-one can teach anyone how to think

Belief/attitude/thinking - if only there was some way to install a computer programme inside the human brain that kicked in when driving

[Hooli]

I like the idea, but I'd bet the greenie eco-bks would infect the training so everyone was told to do 29mph in 5th to save the kittens rather than get taught to drive safer.

[R0G]

Hooli said:

I like the idea, but I'd bet the greenie eco-bks would infect the training so everyone was told to do 29mph in 5th to save the kittens rather than get taught to drive safer.

Don't get me started on SAFED !!

I let a SAFED instructor teach me going around a city and he wanted me to be in too high a gear most of the time which caused more braking than I have ever done as well as excessive downshifting for hazards

ECO driving is good but only when used in apropriate places where gear flexibility is not required

[7mike]

R0G said:

Don't get me started on SAFED !!

I let a SAFED instructor teach me going around a city and he wanted me to be in too high a gear most of the time which caused more braking than I have ever done as well as excessive downshifting for hazards

ECO driving is good but only when used in apropriate places where gear flexibility is not required

SAFED training results include counting the gear changes over a set route (aim to reduce second time round) therefore to loose the flexibility that allows the driver to make steady progress, reduce gear changing and importantly,keep momentum will be lost if too high a gear is selected inappropriately. Unfortunately, imho some trainers (and drivers obsessed with their car's prompt to change up) do assume getting into the higher gear asap is the be all and end all of fuel efficient driving.

[Hooli]

R0G said:

Hooli said:

I like the idea, but I'd bet the greenie eco-bks would infect the training so everyone was told to do 29mph in 5th to save the kittens rather than get taught to drive safer.

Don't get me started on SAFED !!

I let a SAFED instructor teach me going around a city and he wanted me to be in too high a gear most of the time which caused more braking than I have ever done as well as excessive downshifting for hazards

ECO driving is good but only when used in apropriate places where gear flexibility is not required

I think if I had an idiot like that in the car with me they'd be walking home. I've proved to myself loads of times that cars use less fuel in the efficient rev range rather than plodding in top. At least the older cars I've tended to own do, so that's how I drive. It also means the engine works if I push the throttle & I've got engine braking if I lift off.
Plus having driven coaches for a couple of years I had to do it in them because older coaches with weak air compressors tend to run out of air if driven at minimum revs. So that also helped reinforce the habit.

[waremark]

Hooli said:

I think if I had an idiot like that in the car with me they'd be walking home. I've proved to myself loads of times that cars use less fuel in the efficient rev range rather than plodding in top. At least the older cars I've tended to own do, so that's how I drive. It also means the engine works if I push the throttle & I've got engine braking if I lift off.

I have driven a couple of modern turbo petrol cars this weekend which think differently. A petrol Audi A3 with an automatic gearbox is tuned to produce 122 bhp, 51 official mpg and 127 g/km - and so the gearbox has almost certainly been calibrated to maximise the official fuel figures. The autobox seems to choose ratios which cause the engine to run around 1,200 rpm - much of the time it sounds as though the engine is struggling, and of course it is very far from flexible. (In the sport mode of the gearbox it uses a far higher rev range than I would choose; used with the manual paddle shift it is brilliant.) The other example was a Mini Countryman Cooper S All 4. That one was manual, but has a gearchange indicator - and similarly it constantly recommends a gear at which the engine is on the verge of struggling, or actually doing so.

I conclude that if you are prepared to drive very gently, engines are at their most economical when they are running far below a rev level at which they give flexibility.

[Hooli]

waremark said:

Hooli said:

I think if I had an idiot like that in the car with me they'd be walking home. I've proved to myself loads of times that cars use less fuel in the efficient rev range rather than plodding in top. At least the older cars I've tended to own do, so that's how I drive. It also means the engine works if I push the throttle & I've got engine braking if I lift off.

I have driven a couple of modern turbo petrol cars this weekend which think differently. A petrol Audi A3 with an automatic gearbox is tuned to produce 122 bhp, 51 official mpg and 127 g/km - and so the gearbox has almost certainly been calibrated to maximise the official fuel figures. The autobox seems to choose ratios which cause the engine to run around 1,200 rpm - much of the time it sounds as though the engine is struggling, and of course it is very far from flexible. (In the sport mode of the gearbox it uses a far higher rev range than I would choose; used with the manual paddle shift it is brilliant.) The other example was a Mini Countryman Cooper S All 4. That one was manual, but has a gearchange indicator - and similarly it constantly recommends a gear at which the engine is on the verge of struggling, or actually doing so.

I conclude that if you are prepared to drive very gently, engines are at their most economical when they are running far below a rev level at which they give flexibility.

I expect your right with newer cars with fancy injection systems & 57 computers adjusting everything. My experiences tend to be in older cars with proper engines that have carbs & sometimes points. These don't seem to benefit as much from lugging top gear too slow as the carb can't fuel precisely enough to gain MPG from it.