The Multi Million Pound Speeding Business

[OldGreyFox]

My speed is determined by the co-driver…(Mrs Fox sitting in the passenger seat)…

[Tregonsee]

@Realist

Well a brief update.

Attended my Speed Awareness Course last week.

Exactly as expected (given I’d already read reviews on the internet before going)

All very nicey nicey pleasant, no patronisation, no horrific videos of pedestrians being mowed down by cars. Eactly as others have stated.

However I did not let this approach blind-side me into thinking this was all a good thing. Throughout the experience I remained indifferent and unemotional and knew that I was still a victim of a multi million pound scam.
A few other participants I think fell for the well crafted presentation nonsense.

In total there were 24 people on the course. 2 presenters.

Each person had paid approx. £90 so they had raked in £2,160 for that 4 hour course which equates to a nice little earner of over £500 per hour. How many jobs do you know that pay that kind of rate !!!

And even with that huge amount of cash for such little time, they didn’t put on any tea or coffee or refreshments. There was only the water machine that was already there in the hotel room they had hired. Drinks had to be bought from the hotel during the single break period.

Overall the course was very deliberately run in a light hearted fun way. After all, this IS a multi million pound business so it’s vital that their customers are kept happy. Right from the off they start the course by saying “ok folks, we absolutely know you don’t want to be here”.

The presenters are sub-contracted, not employees of the private firms operating the lucrative scam. A clever arrangement when you think about it as you can’t really moan and groan to them about the private firms. They are well meaning and amiable chaps with strong backgrounds. . . but . . . none of that sways my understanding that I have been made a victim of this lucrative scam.

There was some very dubious psychological nonsense going on in the course too.

Started with a bunch of statistics about numbers of accidents in the country, broken down by mild, serious, fatal etc. Given people were there for speeding the psychological trick being played there was obvious to anyone keeping their wits and staying detached like myself. The participants simply assume that those statistics are accidents caused by speeding cars, which of course they weren’t. No attempt whatsoever was made by the presenters to classify how many of those accidents were stupid pedestrians or drink/drug drivers and so on.

Then there was a piece of video starring Tiff Needel of past Top Gear and Fifth Gear fame. It was full of kidology, an absolute nonsense.

In the latter parts of the course there were some more interesting aspects. Pictures of roads in which we had to try and spot hazards, quizzing on speed limits and how to identify them. All basic stuff but it seems a few people were clueless about the age old thing about roads with street lights.

Bottom line is that some people will have come away learning something, but I doubt whether anyone will end up driving any differently.

The wider issue is that driving requires us to constantly assess a very wide range of factors. The road conditions, light conditions, type of road, presence of other vehicles, cars, motorbikes, cycles and the presence or not of pedestrians, adults or kids all the time whilst dealing with distractions of music, news on the radio, passengers people talking, our own state of mind and so on. Our speed is a tiny factor in all of this. Very clearly a good attentive driver travelling at 35mph is going to be better equipped to deal with an “event” than say an old codger with failing eyesight not concentrating doing 28mph.

None of this is covered in these courses.

In the end it’s really just “death by powerpoint” to fill out 4 hours. No-one really cares if you drive to the limits or not. They just want as many £90 course candidates as possible.

Such is the world we live in.

If we paid the fine and took the points the money would go straight into the Treasury and thus some of it would find its way into public services. Opting for the course puts the money into the pockets of these parasitic private firms.
In many ways it’s preferable to take the fine as this is such a huge scam, but the increased insurance premiums would rack up over the next 3-5 years so financially you have to opt to be a victim of the scam.

In time, all insurance companies will club together and start asking if people have been on courses. Once they do, this multi-million pound exploitation scam will disappear.

Sooner the better really.

Exactly as I found it.
We were even given “advice” from an advanced driving instructor that I seriously doubted.
The advice was not to change down when slowing down preparing to stop,

[JBR]

@Tregonsee

Exactly as I found it.
We were even given “advice” from an advanced driving instructor that I seriously doubted.
The advice was not to change down when slowing down preparing to stop,

Change down when preparing to stop?

I just depress the clutch and change into an appropriate gear in case I need to drive off.

Did he mean to go into neutral or just keep slowing down in gear until the engine stalls?

[Realist]

@JBR

Change down when preparing to stop?

I just depress the clutch and change into an appropriate gear in case I need to drive off.

Did he mean to go into neutral or just keep slowing down in gear until the engine stalls?

It’s more about engine wear and fuel saving. In days of old, when knights were bold and toilets weren’t invented they used to advise people to change down gears esp when going downhill. It means the car brakes using the engine rather than the brakes. If you were on a steep hill, there is wisdom in this, you get a more controlled descent. On a less steep hill though you can just coast in neutral allowing gravity to propel the car and use the brakes to bring you to a controlled halt.

This will mean that you will wear the brakes more than you would otherwise, but when a set of brake pads cost maybe £50-£80 and a new engine costs £1000s then it makes sense.

Equally any time you are on a flat road and can see you are going to need to stop for a junction or traffic light then again, coasting in neutral and using the brakes is going to save a little fuel.

[Tregonsee]

@JBR

Change down when preparing to stop?

I just depress the clutch and change into an appropriate gear in case I need to drive off.

Did he mean to go into neutral or just keep slowing down in gear until the engine stalls?

The advice was to carry on in the gear you were in, dip the clutch at the end.
The reasoning given was that with modern brakes it is not necessary to use the gears to slow down.
I was taught to be in the appropriate gear at all times, thus in proper control of the vehicle.

[Tregonsee]

@Realist

It’s more about engine wear and fuel saving. In days of old, when knights were bold and toilets weren’t invented they used to advise people to change down gears esp when going downhill. It means the car brakes using the engine rather than the brakes. If you were on a steep hill, there is wisdom in this, you get a more controlled descent. On a less steep hill though you can just coast in neutral allowing gravity to propel the car and use the brakes to bring you to a controlled halt.

This will mean that you will wear the brakes more than you would otherwise, but when a set of brake pads cost maybe £50-£80 and a new engine costs £1000s then it makes sense.

Equally any time you are on a flat road and can see you are going to need to stop for a junction or traffic light then again, coasting in neutral and using the brakes is going to save a little fuel.

Coasting in neutral?

Seriously? It’s a stupid idea and unsafe to boot.

[JBR]

@Realist

It’s more about engine wear and fuel saving. In days of old, when knights were bold and toilets weren’t invented they used to advise people to change down gears esp when going downhill. It means the car brakes using the engine rather than the brakes. If you were on a steep hill, there is wisdom in this, you get a more controlled descent. On a less steep hill though you can just coast in neutral allowing gravity to propel the car and use the brakes to bring you to a controlled halt.

This will mean that you will wear the brakes more than you would otherwise, but when a set of brake pads cost maybe £50-£80 and a new engine costs £1000s then it makes sense.

Equally any time you are on a flat road and can see you are going to need to stop for a junction or traffic light then again, coasting in neutral and using the brakes is going to save a little fuel.

Yes, I agree with this and also change down (usually to third) on a very steep hill. It makes sense even today.

[JBR]

@Tregonsee

The advice was to carry on in the gear you were in, dip the clutch at the end.
The reasoning given was that with modern brakes it is not necessary to use the gears to slow down.
I was taught to be in the appropriate gear at all times, thus in proper control of the vehicle.

I think I may not have been sufficiently clear. I keep the clutch depressed, even when changing down. I don’t usually use the engine to brake; just like to be ready in case I need to set off again.

[OldGreyFox]

I was under the impression that a car in neutral and allowed to roll along was out of control…I also change down to control the speed of the vehicle unless in an emergency…

[Realist]

@OldGreyFox

I was under the impression that a car in neutral and allowed to roll along was out of control…I also change down to control the speed of the vehicle unless in an emergency…

No that’s patently nonsense. What you may be confused with is a car with the engine switched off coasting down the road. That would be out of control.

With the engine running your car is fully functional, including the power steering and brakes. You are no less in control of your vehicle out of gear than when it is in gear.

Using the engine to slow the car rather than brakes is a very bad idea these days. It will ultimately damage the engine.
Brakes will control and slow the car just fine and new brake pads are far far cheaper than a new engine.

[OldGreyFox]

Image result for driving in neutral illegal
In addition to safety, the other reason not to coast in neutral is that you will use more gas than coasting in gear. In modern computerized automobiles, the engine can cut off fuel if there is low load or no load on the engine. … Because you are in gear, the wheels will keep turning the engine so that it doesn’t stall.30 May 2014
Downhill in neutral is illegal and dumb, and a lot of drivers …
Roadshow: Downhill in neutral is illegal and dumb, and a lot of drivers do it – The Mercury News…

[Besoeker]

Coasting in neutral with the engine idling uses fuel.
Stay in gear with engine braking cuts off the fuel in most modern cars thus saving fuel.

[Primus1]

@Besoeker

Coasting in neutral with the engine idling uses fuel.
Stay in gear with engine braking cuts off the fuel in most modern cars thus saving fuel.

I agree, can’t see how using engine braking can damage an engine,

[Realist]

@Besoeker

Coasting in neutral with the engine idling uses fuel.

Obviously. But you’re using the minimum amount of fuel because the engine is only idling, which is typically under 1000rpm.

@Besoeker

Stay in gear with engine braking cuts off the fuel in most modern cars thus saving fuel.

If you cut off the fuel the car engine would stop so something is off in what you say. I’m not referring to those cars with “Stop/Start” technology here.

If the engine is running at all then it IS burning fuel. The engine cannot run without fuel. That being the case the smallest amount of fuel one can use is the minimum to simply keep the engine ticking over.

[Primus1]

If you are coasting in neutral the engine still req fuel to be sent to the combustion chambers to maintain idling speed, typically around 1000rpm, if you leave it in gear and lift off the accelerator the computer shuts down fuel so no fuel is being used, the car won’t stall because you are in gear…

[Realist]

@Primus1

if you leave it in gear and lift off the accelerator the computer shuts down fuel so no fuel is being used, the car won’t stall because you are in gear…

Sorry but I’m not buying that for an instant. It is the nature and physical design of an engine to use fuel in order to work.
Cut off the fuel and you cut off the engine. It can no longer be ticking over at that point.

If you believe otherwise you’ll have to provide a source reference.

[OldGreyFox]

@Realist

Sorry but I’m not buying that for an instant. It is the nature and physical design of an engine to use fuel in order to work.
Cut off the fuel and you cut off the engine. It can no longer be ticking over at that point.

If you believe otherwise you’ll have to provide a source reference.

Let’s suppose you were descending a hill with a low gear selected and no accelerator being used, would there still be fuel injected into the cylinders? I would assume that with today’s engine management systems the fuel would have been cut off because the engine was being used for braking and still under load conditions. Had fuel still been injected into the engine, it would accelerate and not brake. If the vehicle was in neutral though, fuel would be allowed in the cylinders to prevent stalling because there would be no load on the engine. When you push start a vehicle, the accelerator must be used to allow fuel into the cylinders, otherwise, no fuel would be present in the cylinders and the vehicle would fail to start…

[Realist]

@OldGreyFox

Let’s suppose you were descending a hill with a low gear selected and no accelerator being used, would there still be fuel injected into the cylinders? I would assume that with today’s engine management systems the fuel would have been cut off because the engine was being used for braking and still under load conditions.

I wouldn’t assume that at all. If the fuel is cut off then what you are saying is that all the pistons and valves are still going up and down but with no fuel in them. That surely wouldn’t be good. They are designed to have fuel in them and have the gasses expelled during that movement cycle.

@OldGreyFox

Had fuel still been injected into the engine, it would accelerate and not brake.

No. If the engine is simply working at idle speed then the accelleration is minimal. Try going into 1st gear on a flat surface, lift the clutch and stay off the accellerator. The car will either stall or slowly creep along the road.
The effort of Idle speed will make little difference going down a hill. The force of gravity will be the issue.

The entire idea of cutting fuel off whilst the engine is still running is flawed.

Stop/Start cars may well cut fuel off, but at the same time they cut the engine off too. Why don’t they keep the engine running and just cut the fuel off instead ? Answer because cutting the fuel off would cut the engine off obviously.

If you had a moving car on a downward hill with engine running, ignition on and you cut off the fuel, you would essentially be putting the car into “bump” mode, the thing you do when your battery is flat, bump start.

Running your car in “bump start” mode for any significant period of time isn’t going to do it any good imo.

[Bruce]

A quick Google search would show you that most computers cut off fuel to the engine when the car is in overrun (ie driven by the transmission) There is even an overrun cut off valve.

End of silliness?

[OldGreyFox]

@Bruce

A quick Google search would show you that most computers cut off fuel to the engine when the car is in overrun (ie driven by the transmission) There is even an overrun cut off valve.

End of silliness?

I thought that was the case Bruce, but you’ve explained it better than I ever could……I just know it works…