THE car insurance advice you report suggested that driving fewer miles will reduce the chance of making a claim (“Motorists are hit by serious hike in cost of car insurance”, The Herald, July 23), but reduced mileage is not the whole story. The time spent driving rather than the number of miles driven is a more accurate measurement of accident risk.
For example, drivers A and B leave Glasgow at the same time to drive 300 miles to a location in Yorkshire. With driver A averaging 50mph his journey lasts six hours but driver B averages 60mph so his journey time is 60 minutes less and they are thus exposed to accident risk for one hour less than driver A as they have spent 16.66 per cent less time on the road.
If you are a fuel gauge watcher and think that averaging 60 mph rather than 50mph is a waste of fuel consider this fact: in the final 60 minutes driving time of driver A they will probably use a gallon of fuel and their engine will do about 120,000 revolutions, but during that time driver Bs car will use no fuel and their engine will turn zero revolutions.
The most economical motorway driving speed is the minimum number of revs required for an engine to achieve maximum torque and for many cars this will be around 2,000 and 70mph, so driving slower by choice wastes fuel, exposes the driver to more danger and clogs the roads up.
This also applies to the buying of a used car. Consider the number of revolutions that an engine might have done rather than the miles it’s done, as the smaller the engine the harder it’s worked. A three-year-old 1.2 engine with 30,000 miles might be more worn than a three-year-old 2.0 engine with 50,000 miles on the clock, especially if the latter has been mostly motorway miles.
William McCreath, 14 Finnart Road, Greenock.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel