Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Win a trip to the Ice Hotel in Lapland
Driving test candidates will face questions on the environmental impact of cars when sitting their theory exams from September 3.
The multiple choice test will increase from 35 to 50 questions to allow candidates to be examined on their knowledge of “eco-driving” techniques for reducing fuel consumption and harmful emissions. The pass mark will be 43 and the cost of the test will increase from £21.50 to £28.50.
The extended test will also include questions on unlicensed and uninsured driving, new motorway signs and first aid.
The Driving Standards Agency is considering assessing a candidate’s ability to use a minimum amount of fuel in the driving test.
Since 2005, driving instructors have been required, in their qualifying exam, to “reflect increased awareness and need for economically/environmentally friendly driving”. In tests conducted by the agency, motorists trained in eco-driving reduced their fuel consumption by an average of 8.5 per cent. The key to being a “green motorist” is to drive as smoothly as possible, avoiding harsh and aggressive acceleration and braking. Rather than braking, drivers should take their feet off the accelerator and, without changing gear, allow the engine to slow the car. Modern cars use very little fuel while coasting.
Many drivers do not realise that improved engine technology has made it possible to move much more rapidly to a higher gear. For petrol-driven cars, it is more efficient to shift up before 2,500rpm; for diesel cars before 2,000rpm. It is also no longer necessary to move up and down through all the gears. Missing out gears by changing straight from second to fourth or from fifth to second will usually save fuel.
The agency is keen to convey the message that eco-driving is also safer because it involves adhering to speed limits. A new chapter on eco-driving in the handbook for new drivers includes the advice: “Vehicles travelling at 70mph use up to 30 per cent more fuel to cover the same distance as those travelling at 60mph.”
Drivers will also use less fuel if they scan all around and as far ahead as possible, spotting in advance anything that may be a hazard and adjusting their speed accordingly.
Avoiding aggressive acceleration or braking should double a tyre’s life to 40,000 miles. The agency’s advice includes tips on parking, such as reversing into a space to allow an easy exit. This is because manoeuvring when the engine is cold uses a lot of fuel. It suggests removing roof racks when not in use. The drag on a roof box can increase fuel consumption by 15 per cent.
The European Climate Change Programme has calculated that if drivers across the European Union adopted eco-driving, they would save 25 billion litres of fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 50 million tons by 2010. Learner drivers in Germany, Switzerland and Finland are already tested on eco-driving.
Road deaths rose by 33 in the year to September on the previous 12 months, according to figures published yesterday by the Department for Transport. The number of recorded serious injuries fell by 1 per cent over the same period but the DfT is conducting research to check whether police have become more likely to underestimate the severity of injuries.
Eco-driving
Sample questions
1 When a roof rack is not in use it should be removed. Why is this?
a) It will affect the suspension
b) It is illegal
c) It will affect your braking
d) It will waste fuel
2 Driving at 70 mph uses more fuel than driving at 50mph by up to...
a) 10 per cent
b) 30 per cent
c) 75 per cent
d) 100 per cent
3 What is most likely to cause high fuel consumption
a) Poor steering control
b) Accelerating around bends
c) Staying in high gears
d) Harsh braking and accelerating
4 On a vehicle, where would you find a catalytic converter?
a) In the fuel tank
b) In the air filter
c) On the cooling system
d) On the exhaust system
5 Supertrams or Light Rapid Transit (LRT) systems are environmentally
friendly because
a) They use diesel power
b) The use quieter roads
c) They use electric power
d) They do not operate during rush hour
Answers 1 d) 2 b) 3 d) 4 d) 5 c)
Source: Driving Standards Agency
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2005 / 55
£59,500
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Special Offers now available
At the new sophisticated
Encore Las Vegas Resort!
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
In response to Sean's comment, I'm afraid your original point about a 40% increase in speed more than compensating for a 30% increase in fuel consumption doesn't stand. (It would do if the fuel consumption rates were measured by volume over time.)
Take a journey of 7 miles - at 50 mph at takes 8.4 minutes, whereas at 70 mph it takes 6 minutes, i.e. a 40% increase in speed corresponds to a 28.6% reduction in time (1/1.4). In terms of fuel consumption, assuming this was 35 mpg at 50 mph then consumption would be 0.2 gallons. At 70 mph, when consumption is 30% higher (i.e. 35/1.3, or 26.9 mpg) then consumption for the same 7 miles is 0.26 gallons, i.e. an increase of 30%. There is no compensating impact of the increase in speed. (And even if there would actually be 30% compared with 28.6%, not 40%).
Brian Gooch, Sheffield, UK
To respond to Brian. I think the most relevant pointmay be the discrepancy between the information in the article and that in the question. That discrepancy takes account of my first point (tha dangers of going at 50 on a 70 road). Also, it would make my second point redundant (speed increase of 10%, fuel consumption of 30%, thus more effficient at 50 than 60).
If the question is actually 50mph to 70mph, then my point still stands, for the following: Fuel consumption is fuel used divided by distance. However, you cannot travel a distance without going at speed. Speed alters fuel consumption (not disputed) - the faster you go the more fuel you use. Also, fuel consumption is proportionate to speed - more fuel is used when going faster, This allows for some form of comparison between the two (consumption and speed). This means an efficiency ratio between the two can be made. This is because distance is a factor both in speed and fuel consumption.
Sean Thomas, Manchester, UK
No doubt the DSA will have spent a fortne in an effort to tell all ADI's (driving instructors) to put into practice what we have in fact been preaching for decades.
ECO driving is in the interests of every ADI every day he teaches in his car - to be non ECO freindly means more frequent visits to the filling station.
Believe me when I say we are all ECO friendly!
Bob Smith, Sheffield, Yorkshire
This is plain silly.
"Drivers will also use less fuel if they scan all around and as far ahead as possible, spotting in advance anything that may be a hazard and adjusting their speed accordingly."
--> Looking ahead and adjusting the way you drive has nothing to do with saving fuel, and everything to do with not hitting the car in front when it brakes suddenly because the driver wasn't paying attention to the road.
Look ahead, anticipate and avoid massive pile-ups, road deaths and sad families. Don't do it to save fuel. Do it for the correct reason and save someone's life. maybe yours.
"The agencyâs advice includes tips on parking, such as reversing into a space to allow an easy exit."
--> You reverse into a space so that you can see better when you exit the parking space, instead of backing out lookng over your shoulder and reversing into someone else who is coming along.
Someone out there needs to get their ideas straight. Do te proper thing - but for the correct reason.
adam, Bondy, France
A couple of answers to Sean's comment.
First, it looks like there is an error in the text of Q2, since the same fuel saving is shown in the main article above as between 60 and 70 mph.
But secondly, the comparison of fuel consumption increase to speed increase doesn't work, because fuel consumption is measured by distance travelled, not by time. So for the same journey fuel consumption is 30% more - it isn't therefore more efficient.
Brian Gooch, Sheffield, UK
What on earth has question2 have to do with anything? The places you can drive legally at 70mph are very limited: some dual carriageways and motorways. In either case, driving at 50mph on such roads, unless required by alternative speed restrictions, will create major problems - becuase you will be going slower than anyone else (especially lorries, who will not slow below their maximum 56mph). So you create a hazard going at 50mph. Secondly, to go from 50 to 70, you increase the spead by 20, ie 40%. So to increase your spead by 40%, you increase fueal consumption by 30%. Which is clearly more efficient.
Idiots.
Sean Thomas, Manchester, UK
The answers to the first 3 non-PC questions should be
1 - a - diesel cars
2- a - as 1
3 - b (the "research" that came up with the other answer included so many assumptions that were so laughable as to make the whole result totally invalid)
Brian Gooch, Sheffield, UK
Here's some non-PC question for the 'green' driving test:
1. Which mode of passenger transport is responsible for producing the carcinogens 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP?
a) Car
b) Train
C) Bus
Answer (C) Bus
2. Which mode of passenger transport is mainly responsible for Nitrous oxides and particulates in urban areas?
a) Car
b) Bus
c) Train
Answer (b) Bus
3. Which of the following cars has the lowest life cycle carbon emissions and energy usage?
a) Hummer H3
b) Petrol/electric Hybrid car
Answer (a) Hummer H3
4. Which of the following has a 3 star EuroNCAP rating for pedestrian protection in an accident?
a) Ford Ka
b) Fiat Panda
c) Honda CR-V 4x4
Answer (c) Honda CR-V 4x4
Paul Biggs, Tamworth, UK
This is, of course, all good eco-stuff and any sensible embracing
of such advice and practice is to be encouraged. However, I do have a few
points/questions bearing in mind drivers are '...examined on their
knowledge of eco-driving techniques for reducing fuel consumption
and harmful emissions...'
2 - I am unclear on the point here. The faster you go the more fuel
you use, obviously. Are we to drive on motorways at 50mph to save fuel?
4 - Interesting. And this improves eco-driving how?
5 - Supertrams or LRTs are [more] environementally friendly [than ?]
because electric power has [a greater eco-efficiency?]
Peter Martin, Ross on Wye, UK