Driver Awareness Course - bizarre advice?
Discussion
kambites said:
Hungrymc said:
Ari said:
Would you want to come off the throttle? I think I'd want to keep an even throttle in a temporary loss of grip situation.
You’d want to maintain the wheel speed. Steady throttle will increase wheel speed when traction is lost? I think older cruise systems would add throttle as speed was lost.So in a situation like hitting standing water deep enough to cause aquaplaning, the measured wheel speed slows, and the simplistic cruise control system applies throttle, putting power to the rear wheels on a VERY wet road. That's obviously going to go well.
Like all good old wives' tales, it has a broadly correct basis in fact, but is effectively utter b
ks for the kind of scenarios most people will ever encounter. You would need a very specific combination of car and circumstances to do it, and anything even vaguely modern with multiple wheel speed sensors will react to that kind of significant discrepancy in wheel speeds and inputs by turning off the cruise control.They do the same if you jump a car while on cruise control, as it happens...
stargazer30 said:
The concept is simple though, the lower gear makes it harder for the speed to creep up due to the higher engine braking effect of the lower gear. Its a handy trick if you are going down a steep hill, saves you keeping the brakes on, just pop it into a lower gear and the gear will hold the car back assuming you are not on the throttle.
That's my interpretation of use of gears. People constantly using their brakes to maintain speed on down hills is something for the "annoyed beyond reason" threads but I suspect it has already been posted, more than once.janesmith1950 said:
ABS- I thought the primary benefit was to enable you to steer whilst braking (as in mechanised cadence braking). In a straight line I'd imagine it's better than just locking up but it's probably not too difficult to get near/match manually if you have some sensitivity.
You're missing a key point as expressed by poppopbangbang. ABS allows independent control of braking force for each wheel. To achieve the same braking performance with a manual brake system, you would need four brake pedals with four legs. Unless you've got four legs (and enormous skill) modern ABS systems are technically and practically superior
poppopbangbang said:
Modern ABS systems operate at such a high valve frequency and wheel speed sampling rate that they can maintain that "ideal" braking point of "just before lockup" consistently across all wheels speeds, weight transfers and road conditions on all four wheels. To match them you'd need four feet, four brake pedals and humming bird rapid legs.
Don Veloci said:
That's my interpretation of use of gears. People constantly using their brakes to maintain speed on down hills is something for the "annoyed beyond reason" threads but I suspect it has already been posted, more than once.
Soon to be cured by regenerative braking installed on almost all new cars Ari said:
I was on a Driver Awareness Course today, after lethally piloting my car up a clear straight dry empty three lane road (two in my direction) in the middle of nowhere at a breakneck 60mph (saw the camera van but thought it was a 60, it was 50mph, so my fault).
The chap taking the course was a driving instructor in his sixties I'd say with a long history of HGV driving, HGV training, then car training. His shirt said 'police staff', not sure if he actually driver trains police officers (think so).
Most of the course was basically common sense which is a bit boring for those of us that already possess it, but hey ho.
But the bit I found odd was his 'tips for controlling car speed and sticking to the limit'.
According to him, cars are designed to run most efficiently at 50-60mph, and he reckons that the problem is that therefore it's hard to keep the speed down in a higher gear, which he reckons we're all taught to be in.
So his advice is to only drive in 2nd gear in a 20mph limit and never higher than 3rd gear in a 30mph limit, irrespective of what the car is. He also said on modern cars with economy lights telling you to shift up, you can put the light out by simply lifting completely off the accelerator. Which probably works, albeit with the slight inconvenience that you'll grind to a halt...
For automatics it got even more bizarre. His advice was, when entering a 40mph or 30mph limit, you should put the gearbox into Sport Mode. This, he reckoned, would engage another set of lower gears, therefore making it easier to control the car speed. Once back on NSL roads, put it back in Comfort Mode.
Now I know for a fact that's utter nonsense. I've driven autos for years, Sport Mode makes the car more responsive to the throttle, kicking down a gear or two more quickly and letting the revs build higher when accelerating firmly. But they still revert to whatever gear you'd be in if you'd selected Comfort Mode when on an even throttle (as you would be most of the time when coasting through a 30mph zone). If anything, I'd have thought it's going to give the inept less car control as it will be more eager to kick down and accelerate.
Oh, and he doesn't like cruise controls 'because of aquaplaning' (I can only guess he's referring to the urban myth that occasionally does the Facebook rounds about the copper who apparently tells a woman who crashed that it's because she was on cruise control, when the car aquaplaned the cruise control made it suddenly accelerate, causing her to crash).
Oh and the final gem was him saying that the record for speeding in his county was a Porsche clocked at 155mph. But it was limited to that and no car will ever go faster because they are all limited to 155mph.
The whole thing struck me as utterly bonkers advice, especially the idea of people driving for miles in a 30mph in third (which might be sound for a fast high geared car, but surely not a 'shopping trolley' Ford Ka or similar?) And the engaging Sport Mode to get a lower gear on an auto.?
Or is his advice sound do you think?
My last 2 cars have dropped a gear when Sport is selected, well the revs increase and some drag is introduced as opposed to the coasting feature of the more economy friendly modes.The chap taking the course was a driving instructor in his sixties I'd say with a long history of HGV driving, HGV training, then car training. His shirt said 'police staff', not sure if he actually driver trains police officers (think so).
Most of the course was basically common sense which is a bit boring for those of us that already possess it, but hey ho.
But the bit I found odd was his 'tips for controlling car speed and sticking to the limit'.
According to him, cars are designed to run most efficiently at 50-60mph, and he reckons that the problem is that therefore it's hard to keep the speed down in a higher gear, which he reckons we're all taught to be in.
So his advice is to only drive in 2nd gear in a 20mph limit and never higher than 3rd gear in a 30mph limit, irrespective of what the car is. He also said on modern cars with economy lights telling you to shift up, you can put the light out by simply lifting completely off the accelerator. Which probably works, albeit with the slight inconvenience that you'll grind to a halt...
For automatics it got even more bizarre. His advice was, when entering a 40mph or 30mph limit, you should put the gearbox into Sport Mode. This, he reckoned, would engage another set of lower gears, therefore making it easier to control the car speed. Once back on NSL roads, put it back in Comfort Mode.
Now I know for a fact that's utter nonsense. I've driven autos for years, Sport Mode makes the car more responsive to the throttle, kicking down a gear or two more quickly and letting the revs build higher when accelerating firmly. But they still revert to whatever gear you'd be in if you'd selected Comfort Mode when on an even throttle (as you would be most of the time when coasting through a 30mph zone). If anything, I'd have thought it's going to give the inept less car control as it will be more eager to kick down and accelerate.
Oh, and he doesn't like cruise controls 'because of aquaplaning' (I can only guess he's referring to the urban myth that occasionally does the Facebook rounds about the copper who apparently tells a woman who crashed that it's because she was on cruise control, when the car aquaplaned the cruise control made it suddenly accelerate, causing her to crash).
Oh and the final gem was him saying that the record for speeding in his county was a Porsche clocked at 155mph. But it was limited to that and no car will ever go faster because they are all limited to 155mph.
The whole thing struck me as utterly bonkers advice, especially the idea of people driving for miles in a 30mph in third (which might be sound for a fast high geared car, but surely not a 'shopping trolley' Ford Ka or similar?) And the engaging Sport Mode to get a lower gear on an auto.?
Or is his advice sound do you think?
I'd struggle to take advice from a truck driver, was he shouty and Northern?
85Carrera said:
Buster73 said:
I’ve never been on one so wasn’t aware that could be the case , thanks for the information.
You’re basically warned if you challenge the s on anything that you can be marked down as failing in which case you will be paying for the course and the fine and getting the points. So everyone sits there playing lip service and not really paying attention until they’re allowed to fk off home.Allow some proper interaction and it may actually be useful by that is not the aim ...
bigdog3 said:
janesmith1950 said:
ABS- I thought the primary benefit was to enable you to steer whilst braking (as in mechanised cadence braking). In a straight line I'd imagine it's better than just locking up but it's probably not too difficult to get near/match manually if you have some sensitivity.
You're missing a key point as expressed by poppopbangbang. ABS allows independent control of braking force for each wheel. To achieve the same braking performance with a manual brake system, you would need four brake pedals with four legs. Unless you've got four legs (and enormous skill) modern ABS systems are technically and practically superior
poppopbangbang said:
Modern ABS systems operate at such a high valve frequency and wheel speed sampling rate that they can maintain that "ideal" braking point of "just before lockup" consistently across all wheels speeds, weight transfers and road conditions on all four wheels. To match them you'd need four feet, four brake pedals and humming bird rapid legs.
Ari
I would certainly write to whoever is running the course.
Just to recap the one i went on had a woman who said that there are only 4 mandatory road signs that have to be put up
These were
Roundabout
Level Crossing
Low Bridge
School
All the others ( junction,wild animals etc etc) are ONLY erected following an accident at that point AND get this
Whenever you see a SLOW marking on the road it is where someone was KSI
I just kept trap shut and wrote off to the AA asking them if this was true..nothing more.
Got a letter back saying thanks and she is being 're trained'
Now whether she was or not, at least i have a record of it......just in case
I would certainly write to whoever is running the course.
Just to recap the one i went on had a woman who said that there are only 4 mandatory road signs that have to be put up
These were
Roundabout
Level Crossing
Low Bridge
School
All the others ( junction,wild animals etc etc) are ONLY erected following an accident at that point AND get this
Whenever you see a SLOW marking on the road it is where someone was KSI
I just kept trap shut and wrote off to the AA asking them if this was true..nothing more.
Got a letter back saying thanks and she is being 're trained'
Now whether she was or not, at least i have a record of it......just in case
meatballs said:
The missus was taught 2nd 20 3rd 30 etc so maybe it's useful as a learning aid.
But daft for any experienced driver. People speed because they don't care, or don't pay enough attention.
This just about sums it up perfectly. The driver controls the speed of the car, not the gearbox.But daft for any experienced driver. People speed because they don't care, or don't pay enough attention.
Jakg said:
The same instructor gave a top tip - don't fill your car with fuel, as you'll be carrying all that fuel around all the time - wasting fuel.
He only puts between £5-£10 in and drives until the light comes on.
He does 40k a year so a big saving...
Big saving? Say a car has a 60L tank - Drive to near empty then average fuel carried is roughly 30L. He only puts between £5-£10 in and drives until the light comes on.
He does 40k a year so a big saving...
Instructor drives with average of maybe 5L in tank. Weight saving 25L or 18kg in weight.
Say car is 1200Kg then than a 1.5% weight saving.
USA studies suggest a weight reduction of 5% gets a 2% fuel saving. So our instructor will save roughly a 3rd of 2% maybe 0.6% on his fuel bill.
Assume 40k miles per year - 50mpg, fuel £6 a gallon - £4800 fuel bill. Saving of 0.6% is .................. around £28
Though another way to look at it is the fuel saving is so small that it could be beaten by slowing down by 1mph on the cruise control. Journey times would be faster due to the time saved by not needing fuel stops every 60-100 miles. Or making 6 times as many fuel stops over a year saves you around 50p a week.
https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how...
irc said:
Big saving? Say a car has a 60L tank - Drive to near empty then average fuel carried is roughly 30L.
Instructor drives with average of maybe 5L in tank. Weight saving 25L or 18kg in weight.
Say car is 1200Kg then than a 1.5% weight saving.
USA studies suggest a weight reduction of 5% gets a 2% fuel saving. So our instructor will save roughly a 3rd of 2% maybe 0.6% on his fuel bill.
Assume 40k miles per year - 50mpg, fuel £6 a gallon - £4800 fuel bill. Saving of 0.6% is .................. around £28
Though another way to look at it is the fuel saving is so small that it could be beaten by slowing down by 1mph on the cruise control. Journey times would be faster due to the time saved by not needing fuel stops every 60-100 miles. Or making 6 times as many fuel stops over a year saves you around 50p a week.
https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how...
I was joking. It's utterly ridiculous. Filling up that often would probably cost more fuel in continually driving to a petrol station.Instructor drives with average of maybe 5L in tank. Weight saving 25L or 18kg in weight.
Say car is 1200Kg then than a 1.5% weight saving.
USA studies suggest a weight reduction of 5% gets a 2% fuel saving. So our instructor will save roughly a 3rd of 2% maybe 0.6% on his fuel bill.
Assume 40k miles per year - 50mpg, fuel £6 a gallon - £4800 fuel bill. Saving of 0.6% is .................. around £28
Though another way to look at it is the fuel saving is so small that it could be beaten by slowing down by 1mph on the cruise control. Journey times would be faster due to the time saved by not needing fuel stops every 60-100 miles. Or making 6 times as many fuel stops over a year saves you around 50p a week.
https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how...
Vaud said:
FredClogs said:
I'd go with the 2nd in a 20mph etc... Its not the most efficient from a fueling point of view but you should be driving your car at around the point its making peak torque, it gives you maximum engine breaking and maximum ability to accelerate out of (into) trouble.
Depends on the gearing (and number of gears), weight of car, etc?
Jakg said:
irc said:
Big saving? Say a car has a 60L tank - Drive to near empty then average fuel carried is roughly 30L.
Instructor drives with average of maybe 5L in tank. Weight saving 25L or 18kg in weight.
Say car is 1200Kg then than a 1.5% weight saving.
USA studies suggest a weight reduction of 5% gets a 2% fuel saving. So our instructor will save roughly a 3rd of 2% maybe 0.6% on his fuel bill.
Assume 40k miles per year - 50mpg, fuel £6 a gallon - £4800 fuel bill. Saving of 0.6% is .................. around £28
Though another way to look at it is the fuel saving is so small that it could be beaten by slowing down by 1mph on the cruise control. Journey times would be faster due to the time saved by not needing fuel stops every 60-100 miles. Or making 6 times as many fuel stops over a year saves you around 50p a week.
https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how...
I was joking. It's utterly ridiculous. Filling up that often would probably cost more fuel in continually driving to a petrol station.Instructor drives with average of maybe 5L in tank. Weight saving 25L or 18kg in weight.
Say car is 1200Kg then than a 1.5% weight saving.
USA studies suggest a weight reduction of 5% gets a 2% fuel saving. So our instructor will save roughly a 3rd of 2% maybe 0.6% on his fuel bill.
Assume 40k miles per year - 50mpg, fuel £6 a gallon - £4800 fuel bill. Saving of 0.6% is .................. around £28
Though another way to look at it is the fuel saving is so small that it could be beaten by slowing down by 1mph on the cruise control. Journey times would be faster due to the time saved by not needing fuel stops every 60-100 miles. Or making 6 times as many fuel stops over a year saves you around 50p a week.
https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how...
otolith said:
Does nobody actually monitor what is being told to people in these things and pull up the bullstters? I suppose so long as something appears to be being done and the cash keeps flowing, that's fine.
They’d make more money just fining you and giving you points so I don’t think it’s about that. It’s about giving people who’ve been a bit daft an opportunity to avoid points (stops people claiming there’s a war on motorists) and for a lot of people give them a well needed refresher of what the NSL on various road types is. tters? I suppose so long as something appears to be being done and the cash keeps flowing, that's fine.silverfoxcc said:
Ari
I would certainly write to whoever is running the course.
Just to recap the one i went on had a woman who said that there are only 4 mandatory road signs that have to be put up
These were
Roundabout
Level Crossing
Low Bridge
School
All the others ( junction,wild animals etc etc) are ONLY erected following an accident at that point AND get this
Whenever you see a SLOW marking on the road it is where someone was KSI
I just kept trap shut and wrote off to the AA asking them if this was true..nothing more.
Got a letter back saying thanks and she is being 're trained'
Now whether she was or not, at least i have a record of it......just in case
I had an ex-traffic cop on my course say this contributed to more signage but not the reason for all those signs. Bonkers!I would certainly write to whoever is running the course.
Just to recap the one i went on had a woman who said that there are only 4 mandatory road signs that have to be put up
These were
Roundabout
Level Crossing
Low Bridge
School
All the others ( junction,wild animals etc etc) are ONLY erected following an accident at that point AND get this
Whenever you see a SLOW marking on the road it is where someone was KSI
I just kept trap shut and wrote off to the AA asking them if this was true..nothing more.
Got a letter back saying thanks and she is being 're trained'
Now whether she was or not, at least i have a record of it......just in case
irc said:
Jakg said:
irc said:
Big saving? Say a car has a 60L tank - Drive to near empty then average fuel carried is roughly 30L.
Instructor drives with average of maybe 5L in tank. Weight saving 25L or 18kg in weight.
Say car is 1200Kg then than a 1.5% weight saving.
USA studies suggest a weight reduction of 5% gets a 2% fuel saving. So our instructor will save roughly a 3rd of 2% maybe 0.6% on his fuel bill.
Assume 40k miles per year - 50mpg, fuel £6 a gallon - £4800 fuel bill. Saving of 0.6% is .................. around £28
Though another way to look at it is the fuel saving is so small that it could be beaten by slowing down by 1mph on the cruise control. Journey times would be faster due to the time saved by not needing fuel stops every 60-100 miles. Or making 6 times as many fuel stops over a year saves you around 50p a week.
https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how...
I was joking. It's utterly ridiculous. Filling up that often would probably cost more fuel in continually driving to a petrol station.Instructor drives with average of maybe 5L in tank. Weight saving 25L or 18kg in weight.
Say car is 1200Kg then than a 1.5% weight saving.
USA studies suggest a weight reduction of 5% gets a 2% fuel saving. So our instructor will save roughly a 3rd of 2% maybe 0.6% on his fuel bill.
Assume 40k miles per year - 50mpg, fuel £6 a gallon - £4800 fuel bill. Saving of 0.6% is .................. around £28
Though another way to look at it is the fuel saving is so small that it could be beaten by slowing down by 1mph on the cruise control. Journey times would be faster due to the time saved by not needing fuel stops every 60-100 miles. Or making 6 times as many fuel stops over a year saves you around 50p a week.
https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/greenlings-how...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff