driving slow : your views ?

Shielder

I remember reading the spec lists of the old Rover SD1 Vanden Plas (I loved the look of that car) in about 1980 and that had cruise control. So it's not really a new innovation on cars.

What is happening is that CC is moving down the car sizes, so you'll now have CC fitted to a Corsa (for example) as well as a Bentley.

Andy

Iceweasel

Cornucopia wrote: »

You can recognise bad or selfish driving styles amongst all drivers. (TBH, I've been driving with CC for 15-odd years, and I cannot recognise other CC users in traffic, so I doubt that anyone else can). In particular, anyone has the potential to fill the rear-view mirror of the vehicle in front with their car, I certainly don't see that behaviour being limited to those with CC.

As I said when I introduced CC to the discussion, I think it has the potential to improve driving style because it reduces the link between the right foot and possession of the road space.

But perhaps I have naturally developed a more co-operative driving style due to increasing years and exposure to French driving, and it's nothing to do with CC at all?

I agree - but co-operation on the roads is dependent on people acknowledging that others peoples' journeys are as important as their own.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Just having noted another thread, it occurs to me that the insurance industry have a view on this and it is that if you get speeding offences you are statistically more likely to have an accident than if you don't.

We know that all insurers will give increased premiums for more than 3 points, so it would suggest that no insurance company sees that this is nonsensical, there would be companies who offered normal premiums regardless of speeding convictions as an easy way of gathering more business.

We know they don't and so it is reasonable to assume that they have a good idea as to the likelihood of a claim from this profile of driver.

Cornucopia

The devil's advocate in me suspects that they are simply measuring something which is easily measured.

But you are right, and although you might get a discount for an IAM pass, it would be more than outweighed by having, say, 6 points.

I've always thought that it was quite impressive that the Insurers can cover someone from maybe £200 upwards, when you think of the amount of damage that can potentially result.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Cornucopia wrote: »

I've always thought that it was quite impressive that the Insurers can cover someone from maybe £200 upwards, when you think of the amount of damage that can potentially result.

I think that generally explains why TPFT is not a lot less (or more even) than comp when you think about it.

almillar

UserNameAlreadyExists:

A steady cruising speed is keeping your foot in the same place

If your actual speed drops when climbing a hill and increases when descending

To reiterate what Cornucopia says - you can't possibly beleive this?!! A steady speed is - a speed that stays the same! Not a throttle position that stays the same! I don't care how many stupid CC systems you used, hitting a hill and slowing down is NOT maintaining a steady speed. This is so basic!

UsernameAlreadyExists

almillar wrote: »

UserNameAlreadyExists:
To reiterate what Cornucopia says - you can't possibly beleive this?!! A steady speed is - a speed that stays the same! Not a throttle position that stays the same! I don't care how many stupid CC systems you used, hitting a hill and slowing down is NOT maintaining a steady speed. This is so basic!

I think you are entirely missing my point.


So all those people that are driving along and hit a hill, yes, of course they lift off on the ascent and then floor it when they hit the top. Yes, they're deliberately going out of their way to do this by adjusting the accelerator position ? Right? No, not at all ... they're probably not doing a thing and just cruising along without moving their foot even a millimetre. The consequence of this is the speed variation on the hills. As such cruise control is actually going against what most other people do, and accelerating up and slowing on the way down. Great use of energy

Cornucopia

I'm sure we've all understood what you're saying - which amounts to this: (nearly) everyone does it, so it can't be bad practice.... and yet it is.

Herd mentality is never really a substitute for reasoned thinking. And I have my doubts about its modern counterpart "Wisdom of crowds", too.

UsernameAlreadyExists

Cornucopia wrote: »

Herd mentality is never really a substitute for reasoned thinking. And I have my doubts about its modern counterpart "Wisdom of crowds", too.

I refer you to post #699 ... thanks for quoting that back to me.
And you try going against the herd ... good luck

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Just to throw a fly into the ointment, if you are driving for economy then you might be interested in the Mercedes GPS assisted cruise control for their big lorries which will take account of the terrain.

Essentially what it will do is grind up the hill in as high a gear as it can and then when it is nearly at the top it coasts, using its momentum to clear the top of the hill to minimise the braking down hill.

It probably doesn't work as well in a car but they have now managed to get their lorry cruise control as efficient as the best drivers by predicting the road.

I doubt it translate so well into cars, but essentially holding highest gear you can up the hill should be the most efficient, which might mean pressing the accelerator rather than bleeding it off.

You have to be careful with driving techniques because some old techniques, like avoiding lowish revs are less of a problem because of fuel flow metering - old carburettor cars might burn fuel inefficiently (essentially they are a best guess and more linear solution to fuel delivery) whereas modern injection provides the right amount of fuel for any revs.