Archives

Hi All:

___Just a quick note and I hope everyone looks this up in their own locales…

http://law.onecle.com/illinois/625ilcs5/11-1410.html
Coasting prohibited. (a) The driver of any motor vehicle when traveling upon a down grade shall not coast with the gears or transmission of such vehicle in neutral.
___Good Luck

___Wayne

Pretty much the same in VA:

§ 46.2-811. Coasting prohibited.

The driver of any motor vehicle traveling on a downgrade on any highway shall not coast with the gears of the vehicle in neutral.

One might think the word "highway" limits this to freeways and interstates. Not the case. The Code defines a highway pretty much as any road designated for vehicular traffic.

Minnesota
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP&year=2006&section=169#stat.169.39.0

169.39 COASTING.
(a) The driver of any motor vehicle when traveling upon a downgrade shall not coast with
the gears of such vehicle in neutral.
(b) The driver of a commercial motor vehicle when traveling upon a downgrade shall not
coast with the clutch disengaged.

In Colorado, neutral is prohibited, but coasting with the clutch in is only prohibited for trucks and buses.

Nothing in the CT driver's manual but haven't searched the CT statutes yet.

Interesting, the way the law reads is is OK to coast in neutral on the level or on an uphill? Is it illegal to change gears with an MT car going downhill because you are in neutral, briefly? I wonder when these laws were enacted.

It would be helpful if attlaw4u or any other legal talent we have here could give their take on these laws?

Here is Maryland's:
§ 21-1108. Coasting prohibited.

(a) Vehicles generally.- If a motor vehicle is traveling on a downgrade, the driver of the motor vehicle may not coast with the gears or transmission in neutral.

(b) Truck or bus.- If a truck or bus is traveling on a downgrade, the driver of the truck or bus may not coast with the clutch disengaged.

[An. Code 1957, art. 661/2, § 11-1108; 1977, ch. 14, § 2.]

Notice that it says nothing about coasting to a red light, etc., just about coasting down an incline.

Here is another weird Maryland law, that seems to prohibit use of 4-way flashers to let people know to pass you:

f) Use of signal lamps.- The signals provided for in § 21-605 (b) and (c) of this subtitle:

(1) May be used to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a stopped, standing, or parked position; and

(2) May not be flashed as a courtesy or "do pass" signal to the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear.

I'll have to check into the meaning of this.

These Maryland laws seem to be of use for Hypermiling, especially the one about cresting a hill:
(e) Approaching and going around curves.- Consistent with the requirements of this section, the driver of a vehicle shall drive at an appropriate, reduced speed when approaching and going around a curve.

(f) Approaching crests of grades.- Consistent with the requirements of this section, the driver of a vehicle shall drive at an appropriate, reduced speed when approaching the crest of a grade.

Is this defining DWL or what?

Hi All:

___Just a quick note and I hope everyone looks this up in their own locales…

http://law.onecle.com/illinois/625ilcs5/11-1410.html

___Good Luck

___Wayne

As I read the law there is nothing against coasting on a level or upgrade, so, for example, the practice of coasting to a red light in neutral would be legal in most instances.

so...what do all these laws mean to us?

Class C misdeamor for coasting in TN. that means 50 dollar fine.
I would never admit to coasting though :)
they have the burden of proof

Class C misdeamor for coasting in TN. that means 50 dollar fine.
I would never admit to coasting though :)
they have the burden of proof

This is nearly impossible to prove unless a cop were somehow staring straight into and down into the driver's compartment of your car from point-blank range. There's a lot of weird laws on the books.

so...what do all these laws mean to us?

I would say not much. In the far-fetched instance you were to get stopped, there's really no way to prove you were in neutral.

It's so hard to prove that you were coasting that these laws are only used if coasting in neutral was the obvious cause of an accident. I wouldn't worry about it unless there is some Barney Fife cop out there with a vendetta against hypermilers. Even he would look right past someone who's freewheeling if there was someone else going 85 in a 55mph zone.

It's so hard to prove that you were coasting that these laws are only used if coasting in neutral was the obvious cause of an accident. I wouldn't worry about it unless there is some Barney Fife cop out there with a vendetta against hypermilers. Even he would look right past someone who's freewheeling if there was someone else going 85 in a 55mph zone.

hmmm, not according to this:

Well, apparently the AAA called the CT state police, and now the state police are "looking" for Hypermilers. Their spokesman was on the CBS Morning Show, telling everyone how Hypermilers practice "many" dangerous techniques, like turning off their engines to coast down hill, and losing their steering and braking in the process. Also drafting was mentioned.

They spoke of Wayne, and showed some footage of him saying that CleanMPG does not advocate drafting.

so...what do all these laws mean to us?

With all due respect to those who may disagree with me, I would say "everything.."

"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught." J. C. Watts

How much respect and/or consideration for new ideas can any person or organization expect to earn from others if they clearly promote and practice "personally selective" non compliance, especially if the defense offered for that non compliance is "no one is looking, or I won't tell..."? Driving, like so many other privileges (not rights) in this country carries with it an explicit set of requirements which which we are expected to make a sincere personal effort to comply when we ask to be granted that privilege.

How much character the group sincerely and consistently demonstrates in their actions (not just in disclaimers) - whether someone such as the media is watching or not, will directly influence how many people will pay attention to even the most appropriate and legal of techniques.

I also dare say that no amount of fuel savings could ever be more important than the character we may inspire in others by our true actions. Would we want our children to learn that we really believe it's alright to break any law that we personally feel isn't meaningful to us simply because it allows us to save an additional .x mpg?

It looks like most of them refer to downhill specifically, leaving level ground or uphill 'available'. There is also no mention of 'engine off', whether it is while the vehicle in motion or not. In my typical commute, I have been doing more pulses on the downhills and gliding on the uphills. This area is relatively flat terrain, somewhat like the area in Elkhart, IN... hmmm some hills in Elkhart are steeper...

Trackermpg, in all honesty these coasting laws are completely absurd. I'm not talking about ICE-off ... I'm talking about ICE-on. Everyone with a manual transmission coasts at some point, at least while approaching a red light.

These coasting laws date back to the days when brakes couldn't always be trusted, and engines couldn't always be trusted to keep running if you took the car out of gear, problems that disappeared decades ago. They may still be justified in the case of heavy trucks going down grades, but in the case of passenger cars they make no sense at all.

There are all sorts of absurd laws on the books in various places -- like not being allowed to hang laundry on Sundays -- which are NEVER enforced and NEVER observed. The coasting laws fall into this category IMO. Even going 56 in a 55 is a more serious offense than coasting.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/545.406.00.html

§ 545.406. COASTING. (a) An operator moving on a
downgrade may not coast with the gears or transmission of the
vehicle in neutral.
(b) An operator of a truck, tractor, or bus moving on a
downgrade may not coast with the clutch disengaged.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

============

In Texas, this law was enacted in 1995--much more recently than I would have guessed. Does anybody have a history of the purpose behind these laws? (obviously safety, but what was deemed unsafe about coasting?)

I looked through the Manitoba highway traffic act and didn't find anything that specifically forbid coasting or FAS'ing. There was something along the lines of "a driver shall not operate his vehicle in a manner which reduces his control over the vehicle", which could arguably be applied to a FAS. It could also be applied to driving with underinflated tires or a cell phone though, both of which are more dangerous than a FAS and neither of them seem to be disallowed.

Hi All,

The issue with downhill coasting, which is not hypermiling coasting, is that transmissions may not reingage into a gear if the road gear gets going much faster than the engine driven gear in the car. This is apparent in manual transmission cars, in that if one revs the engine, the gear drops back in at a lower force. With typical hypermiler skill this is not an issue. But, down a steep hill, an inexperienced person may not know that he/she has to rev the engine to get the gear to drop in. Not being able to get the gear to drop, then denies the operator engine braking, which on a steep long hill is required to avoid brake overheating. An inexperienced operator may panic and force the gear in, which can damage the synchros, and make the gear hard to engage accellerating as well.

Many older trucks do not have synchros. So, it takes a whole bunch more skill to get the gear to drop in on a down hill. And the weight of the vehicle can fry a clutch, if the operator does not match engine to road speed and just lets the clutch out quickly. A fried clutch denies the vehicle engine braking. Which is a great big problem in a fully loaded truck on long downslopes.

It seems to me that CT Highway patrol is overreaching as they have forgot the spirit of the law (see above) and are only left with the letter of the law. The term "downgrade" in the spirit of the law implies a long hill. But, to the letter of the law, it can mean any low slope, which may not even result in a terminal speed greater than the speed limit. These are the more common hypermiling fair.

I saw a thing on You Tube, where the driver was engine off gliding ( I call it this, as this is the common Prius terminology) with an automatic transimission, in-gear. Apparently, as the engine died, he went full throttle, and the engine was back driven by the transmission. This is kinda like a Prius above 40 mph, but not quite. The open throttle allowed the car to pump air through the engine, and the braking effect was less. I believe it was a fuel injected car, hopefully with fuel cut mode. This would not save gas in a carboraetor car. In the Prius the engine does not turn faster than 1100 rpm, limiting the airflow through the engine. Seems a DOHC engine would work very good for this, there is much less engine braking with DOHC engines. So, to restart he only had to put the car in run. No starter needed. This might be a legal way around the letter of the coasting laws, albeit not as efficient. One problem I can think of is that the air will cool down the Catylitic converter. This was an mid 80's car that it was being done on. The other problem was the electronic speedometer would go off when he was gliding.

So, it seems like the CT Highway Patrol might be called the SMOG-MAKERS Patrol. By enforcing the letter of the law, people will be forcing to generate lots of extra HC emissions, to save gas, to deal with the expense of driving.

Oops,

Wait a second. That gliding this You-Tube guy is doing is very very dangerous. Because he cant put the car back into run, as that would allow the engine back on. SO, now he is going down the road, with his steering wheel in the ready-to-be-locked position, and no power to ABS or TC. Any kind of emergency steer, and the wheel is locked. No ABS action, either, so, he would slide into stuff. But this old of a car probably did not have ABS.

Seems, one would have to heavily modify a vehicle to make this practical.

Hi Tracker, a quote like that was originally credited to Disraeli (sp?). I always liked that.

Imagine this situation: you are on a steep downhill, and you pull it into neutral and then key-off. As speed increases, you continue the FAS. At about 80, you put it into 3rd, thinking you have put it into 5th (my Aveo has a notoriously mushy shifter).

Oh yes, it is also raining. Then this "less experienced hypermiler" (maybe 30% of our current members) pops the clutch to restart the engine. Since this is a frontwheel drive car, is there any possiblity of a skid and loss of control?

I'm just trying to think like someone from the AAA.

Putting on my sea-lawyer's hat, I notice the laws don't seem to specifically speak to the situation of simply pushing in the clutch, but leaving the shifter in 5th. Also, they only speak to downgrades.

It may be a good exercise to begin a dialog with the AAA as to exactly why this law was written, when it was first instituted, and what prompted its codification. Or, perhaps we just ask this question of our own state police. Comments?

It seems to me that CT Highway patrol is overreaching as they have forgot the spirit of the law (see above) and are only left with the letter of the law. The term "downgrade" in the spirit of the law implies a long hill. But, to the letter of the law, it can mean any low slope, which may not even result in a terminal speed greater than the speed limit. These are the more common hypermiling fair.

Whoa, we don't know what the law is in CT. I couldn't find any mention of coasting in the driver's manual but maybe there is something in the statutes? [also they're the CT State Police, there is no CT Highway Patrol - the CT State Police cover all sorts of stuff beyond vehicular issues]

Hi All,

The issue with downhill coasting, which is not hypermiling coasting, is that transmissions may not reingage into a gear if the road gear gets going much faster than the engine driven gear in the car. Not being able to get the gear to drop, then denies the operator engine braking, which on a steep long hill is required to avoid brake overheating

So, it seems like the CT Highway Patrol might be called the SMOG-MAKERS Patrol. By enforcing the letter of the law, people will be forcing to generate lots of extra HC emissions, to save gas, to deal with the expense of driving.

These laws were also written when asbestos brake pads were common. Asbestos pads suffered from "brake fade" where as they heated up, they became less and less effective in a truly vicious cycle.

Modern ceramic brakes do not suffer from brake fade in all but the most extreme conditions- like racing in the rain.

Besides, Warthog, back then they didn't have front disc brakes, just drum brakes on all four wheels. Try those puppies after driving through a puddle - thrilling. Also, transmission synchros were not that good if present at all. Once you attained a good clip, it was difficult to get it into one of the three gears you had.

But, many of these states seem to have enacted this statute within the past 20 years, which tells me they have different concerns. I'd really like to know where they are coming from. Then perhaps we could show them what we've learned, and get the law revised. The proof is in the pudding.

well, seeing how well all the laws concerning speeding are enforced, it seems to me that if the highway patrol is looking for someone to stop, they would have a much larger field to choose from if they started there. i can hardly see them searching out people who "might" be doing some obscure maneuver downhill, when the speeding is so obvious and flagrant.

Laurieaw, since the police have done such a dismal job of enforcing the speed limits, perhaps they see this as some low hanging fruit and hence some good PR. You know, disregard the elephant in the room.

Here in Maryland, they recently made headlines by giving a warning to an Insight driver who was clocked at 50 in a 65 zone. It wasn't an issue of traffic (there was none). It wasn't an issue of blocking cars (they all had 2-3 extra lanes). Actually it was more of an alcohol stop because of the low speed. But since the guy hadn't been drinking, for some reason the cop's manhood was at issue, so he couldn't let the guy go with nothing authoritative being done - hence, the warning.

This made all the news locally. Of course while this guy is stopped, no doubt 50 speeders and 30 drunks drove by. Isn't it interesting? They pull a guy over for going slow and it makes news (read that as "good PR") but if they pull over a speeder - silence. It makes sense for them to show the great unwashed that they are doing something.

Hi Kent:

___Ad he was perfectly legal to be driving a 50 mph in a 45 mph min - 65 mph max zone too ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hello CT
I will quote from the article in saturdays' paper.
'Shutting off your engine and coasting won't get you a fine but it could make handling your vehicle much more difficult,'
I can't make out if this is the author or the safety officer quoted.
I should probably scan this article into a pdf, not sure if I can attach to the blog thou.

This message is not intended to provide nor shall be construed to provide legal advice:

A cursory search of North Carolina statutes did not reveal any laws specifically addressing NICE-On Coasting or FAS. It might be that such techniques could fall under the statute punishing reckless driving:

§ 20‑140. Reckless driving.
(a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway or any public vehicular area carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others shall be guilty of reckless driving.
(b) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway or any public vehicular area without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property shall be guilty of reckless driving.

For subpart (a), lawyers might recognize that "in willful or wanton disregard" is a high standard, however, and would be difficult to prove. I think they'd have an easier time nailing you on subpart (b). Still, I think you could argue, quite persuasively, that your vehicle would not "be likely to endanger any person or property" by virtue of either technique. Of course, I'm not talking about coasting down a big mountain -- I'm talking about coasting to a stop sign or whatever.

Most states have Careless Driving as well as Reckless Driving laws. The Reckless has a much higher standard, and is generally applied to over-the-the-top speeding and running red lights in blatant disregard for everyone around you. That would be a pretty tough standard to apply to coasting unless you were going way over the speed limit, swerving around slower traffic down a hill and blowing through stop signs. A cop might well cite you for Careless, however, and then it would be entirely the judge's discretion.

Virginia law:
§ 46.2-811. Coasting prohibited.

The driver of any motor vehicle traveling on a downgrade on any highway shall not coast with the gears of the vehicle in neutral.

(Code 1950, § 46-218; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-200; 1989, c. 727.)

I've not seen anything limiting engine off at traffic signals, or being on the highway with the engine off. Has anyone seen such a statute?

I've not seen anything limiting engine off at traffic signals, or being on the highway with the engine off. Has anyone seen such a statute?

Couldn't find any such statute in N.C. Presumably NICE-On falls under the (other state) statutes that would capture NICE-Off, though of course there is the "not a downgrade" defense discussed above.

With the statutes ill-fitted to Hypermiling and our toolbox of techniques untested by the law, perhaps time will tell whether law enforcement chooses to attempt to cite Hypermilers beyond the anecdotes we've read about recently, and then, whether existing law can be extended to Hypermiling anyway. As many have said before, I stress the police a lot less now than when I was flying down the highway and changing lanes like I was in an action movie.

so...what do all these laws mean to us?

Don't coast in a way that leads to brakes overheating and subsequent crashing. That is the intention of those rules, even though all kinds of journalists and officials will try to bash us in the head with them.

Oops,

Wait a second. That gliding this You-Tube guy is doing is very very dangerous. Because he cant put the car back into run, as that would allow the engine back on. SO, now he is going down the road, with his steering wheel in the ready-to-be-locked position, and no power to ABS or TC. Any kind of emergency steer, and the wheel is locked. No ABS action, either, so, he would slide into stuff. But this old of a car probably did not have ABS.

Seems, one would have to heavily modify a vehicle to make this practical.


No, no!!!

Most ignitions have the positions LOCK-ACC-IGN-START. He was obviously in ACC instead of IGN while doing this.

Also, to get to LOCK you would have to push an extra button, and
finally, the acutal locking takes place when you pull the key.

I've not seen anything limiting engine off at traffic signals, or being on the highway with the engine off. Has anyone seen such a statute?

I haven't seen one for Ohio or any of the other of the several states I have researched. Also, good point Ken about using "slower and appropriate speed" when cresting a hill or a curve. Not so sure (well maybe I am) how it would be viewed when there is way too much temptation to carry more energy through a curve when gliding compared to "normal" driving. It's certainly been described somewhat "proudly" as a FE technique by the interviewee(s) in an article or two that I can remember reading...

Something that should also be considered is the fact that cumulative use of some of the techniques being evaluated with respect to legality (such as FAS) is so incredibly miniscule when compared to the rest of the driving population, and is also of relatively recent "popularity," however small. These issues may have not yet at all been given due consideration by law enforcement and legislation. When the US drives some 8.2 Billllllion (wheres the Dr. Evil smiley face when you need it?) miles each day and there may be a few hundred(?), or even thousand(?) people FASing duting the course of maybe several thousand miles total(?) each day, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the appropriate authorities didn't consider that people would be shutting down their engines regularly while driving. I tend to agree with the "time will tell" statement above.

FASing may be be subject to judicial or law enforcement discretion with respect to "careless" or "reckless" or "full" or "reasonable" control of the vehicle" type statutes. When you consider that the driver has intentionally (even if only briefly, but in many cases repeatedly) disabled and/or degraded the design system status that would in most cases improve safety or performance compared to the same vehicle and conditions with them in a normal fully functioning state) one of the above words or phrases could possibly be applied.

"But your honor, even though I turned of my airbags, my ABS, my traction and stability control systems, and my power steering, and I gave myself limited power brake backup capability, some of those systems were only off for a few seconds while they ran the POST tests designed to be run and warn me of potential problems before I started driving my vehicle, and I certainly never expected something out of my control that I hadn't expected to happen would actually happen...":o

Speaking of airbags, I'll throw another one out there ...

The biggy that in my readings here that I have not seen is the issue of "making inoperative" an airbag system. IIRC is a federal law that prohibits such an act unless written approval is given by the NHTSA under very limited circumstances. Since I don't think I'll be around here much longer, I'll just throw in a few "counter-points" up front.

1. There is no written distinction that I am aware of between making the systems inoperative permanently or for several seconds at a time while driving. Making inoperative is making inoperative.

2. What (in writing) do the specific manufacturer(s) of the vehicle, industry recognized safety organizations, and applicable judicial and law enforcement agencies say about the technique in question? I bring up the manufacturer and industry safety organizations input because a judicial review may very well defer to or seriously consider their knowledge and judgment about the technique when determining legality of a unique situation.

3. I was under the impression that this thread is intended to promote discussion of the legality of the issues raised, and I have appreciated reading the thoughtful efforts of most to attempt to sincerely determine compliance. I realize that I went on a tangent with #3, but I hoped that maybe the perspective of an industry where the importance of safety is so commonly recognized may help give perspective on how risk/safety is really evaluated. If it didn't, I'm truly sorry.

4. See #2 and 3 above and my previous post concerning character.


Since I feel like I have likely exceeded the yearly number of post/words allowed with this one, I promise I will limit any future posts to mileage logs and detailing my vehicle aerodynamic modifications. I may occasionally beg for a 4WD and "non-FAS" handicap in the Summer Challenge. :DI do sincerely thank and appreciate the site's intentions, passion (when it's presented respectfully, which is unfortunately not always the case) and certainly the personal comments and advice from everyone who has been gracious enough to offer it to my benefit, regardless of what our personal differences may be in regards to backgrounds or professional expertise. To the people I have had the pleasure of communicating with over the last few months, feel free to send a PM to say hi.

Caution: for those not interested in how safety and risk are professionally evaluated in another transportation industry (aviation) or for those who aren't up for reading a bit of a (hopefully) respectfully offered monologue please skip straight to the next post. I'll get it out of my system then I'll be (mostly) gone :o

If you are continuing, please understand that there are quite a few tenets of the site that I respect and appreciate considerably. It would be wrong to appear to overlook them, but since safety practices such as slowing down and not tailgating are fairly universally appreciated, I'll simply say thanks to those who both teach those concepts and practice them with integrity.

Be thankful that when you get on an airliner each pilot doesn't exercise his "personal choice or beliefs" to determine which regulations to follow or not, and that they don't normally utilize "better" non-normal procedures that are not evaluated, tested, developed or quantified by either the manufacturer who designed the vehicle or by professionals who specialize in procedural modification and evaluation. Sometimes they do, and there is a specific name for the behavior. It's been identified as one of the 5 hazardous personality traits, in the case of intentional regulatory non-compliance case it's called "anti-authority" behavior and moves them into a high risk group because this very type of behavior is by far the leading major contributing cause of accidents. When two regulations may appear to be at odds with each other, a sincere effort is expected and required to choose the most conservative solution in the interest of safety - not fuel or time efficiency and safety. The increased risk is also independent of the person's intentions, beliefs, or "comfort level" with the particular behavior. While it is possible that the increase in risk may be mitigated somewhat by "exercising" more caution, it never eliminated therefore remaining an increased risk) and is usually exacerbated by the failure to identify the behavior as such. Failure to realize this last point is called "denial," also one of the 5 hazardous personality traits. There isn't (an aviation specific, anyway) word to describe someone who believes that simply a demonstration of a technique without immediate negative consequence is validation of the safety of the same. We see this misconception in aviation daily. An operator believes that they are safe because they have flown for the last 40 years/50,000 hours without an accident. While it does offer an indication about the potential level of safety, it's not as "absolute" as that operator would want to believe. Considering that the accident rate for commercial operations is in the ballpark of 1 fatal accident in 100,000 hours, they would have to fly for another 50 years/50,000 hours to equal the statistical rate. One or two accidents at the 99,000 hour mark (with no change in behavior or procedures from the first 98,9999) would make their rate double the average. Since statistical analysis is difficult on an individual as opposed to an industry wide basis, safety must be more immediately evaluated by evaluating the behaviors themselves with respect to industry best practices. A lack of accidents (especially in a minute sample) is not anything approaching an absolute indicator of safety. Automobile accident rates are determined and calculated by the #/billion miles. If I never met or heard of someone getting in a serious accident due to a technique I used, it doesn't mean I am "safe" because those techniques didn't lead me to have an accident. It could have been me, but the odds are it won't be. It also didn't/doesn't matter how "safe" I thought I was or how comfortable I was with those techniques. It is apparent that in part some of the distress caused by many of the responses to statements from organizations that do have expertise in safety is due to a lack of professional understanding of how wide scale safety is truly achieved and evaluated.


Also be thankful that when a matter of compliance (or procedural viability) is in question, those professional responsible for developing and implementing a procedure usually go straight to the responsible regulatory authorities for their opinion. Sure we hypothesize and complain and make judgements up front, but the big difference is that we don't take our opinions seriously until we have followed and carefully considered all industry best practices concerning safety, and we never believe our opinion is a definitive answer until after we have completed those procedures and evaluations. When in doubt, taking a conservative, known route is a behavior that can appropriately be described as "putting safety first." When a secondary goal (such as saving fuel) is the motivation for the procedure, a red flag automatically goes up because it is all too easy to unknowingly compromise safety in the pursuit of that goal no matter how noble or "profitable" it may be. It happens more than anyone would like to admit or know.

Believe it or not, a form of "engine off P&G" is doable and has been "tested" in jets. In many ways its less risky than in a car because you don't have to degrade your safety systems status while 5 feet from the ditch or another car! It would save millions in fuel. Ever wondered why they choose to burn the extra fuel and keep all systems normal?

For what it's worth, safety in aviation and in automobiles has improved in no small part from automated safety systems and the elimination of manual control tasks during an emergency. Quite a bit of what I see here is in direct conflict with that concept, It's not uncommon - you simply can't expect an individual or group of individuals to understand what an industry has collectively learned form education, research, and experience, and dedicated themselves to for decades.

And I humbly offer to those who would tend to dismiss any analogy between how safety and risk and evaluated, addressed, and maintained in aviation and driving (especially if it rains on their mpg parade), it is true that driving is statistically far more dangerous than flying. Based on the site's general attitude and words towards anything or anyone that does rain on their mpg parade, I expect I will be dismissed by several as an idiot as many others frequently have been before me, especially since I don't get as good of mpg numbers as many others, therefore I don't know what I am talking about (even though I would be much closer to their numbers if I chose use the techniques). I certainly expect that. I don't mean disrespect, and I do appreciate the innovation and dedication it requires, but it does amaze me at (too many it seems) times that pure FE numbers are often automatically taken to mean expertise in many other areas, as opposed to being taken exactly for what they are. Incredible FE numbers. I smiled when someone recently referred to Wayne as a "rockstar" of hypermiling..." Because I agree that he is. I also marvel at his understanding and depth of knowledge of the industry and admire his passion and dedication. But I would offer a word of caution and remind folks that Pete Townshend who was arguably one of the greatest rock stars ever went deaf from his playing his own music too loud. It was good, but the excesses had some negative consequences.

I was saddened by recently watching a new member who obviously had a very mature and wise perspective on the trade-offs between safety and improving FE be chased away fairly rapidly. He understood the intangible value of practices such as wearing shoes, etc. and was willing to forgo potential fuel savings. If you want a huge lesson in understanding what it really looks like to "put safety first" look at his thoughts. If you or your family was ever in a terrible accident on the highway, he is absolutely the guy you would want to stop to help you first. How many of you had thought how he really seemed like the kind of guy you would want to be first to your family's vehicle after a crash, yet never got that it was mostly due to his contrasting (from your) opinion on safety issues that made him that guy? While he got kind of testy at some sarcastic remarks, I also felt when I read it that the subsequent commenter was making fun of him in a sarcastic manner more than he was joking around with him. Not an entirely uncommon occurrence here I might add. I also am fairly bewildered at how a group seems to so consistently demand respect from others (the press, AAA, etc.) by talking about them so disrespectfully? Sure, sometimes they are wrong about certain things, or generalize their comments more than is appropriately negative to the organization, but damn, how much respect or consideration could you ever possibly hope to earn (key word, earn) when so much disrespect is shown to those with whom you disagree? I can honestly say that this last observation is truly what has turned me off to the site. It is also becoming way too hard to sift through all of "homemade rocket science" and the apparent anger and resentment of the government, the automakers, and the industry groups just to find a morsel of helpful information that helps improve my FE without compromising safety in any way.

According to Princeton, a fanatic is "a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); and to Winston Churchill "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" I do apologize if I offended any of those who actually do put safety first, because I know your here - having seen comments that warranted true "Safety rock-stardom" combined with "roadie" numbers. You can't have both in equal proportions, and thats a fact. To improve one you often have to compromise the other. Not always, of course as in the case for reducing speed, but when a procedure deviates from what the rest of the professional world is recommending or thsy caution against, at least consider you may not be as educated, experienced, or wise as them when it comes to evaluating safety when you have such a personal stake in the size of the numbers.


It's interesting when you consider how mind-boggling large of a positive effect you all are truly capable of having and would likely have IMHO on the entire world if you chose to simply influence an entire army simply to slow down to the speed limit, properly maintain their vehicles, regularly check their tires for proper inflation, and manage energy even a little energy better versus a tiny fraction of people who "push" for a few more, and stop ridiculing and pushing away those who don't buy into as much as you so passionately feel they should. If you wish others to respectfully disagree with you (although it seems mostly you seriously prefer no one ever disagree) then you should consider respectfully disagreeing with them them and by all means encourage the safety experts to evaluate and weigh in on your procedures. Sit back and if the industry recognized experts and manufacturers happen to find whatever viable and safe valuable techniques or concepts there may be for incorporation into the mainstream, and do this through an appropriate and professional process, then you will have earned much more respect and a bigger place in history than some seem to demand right this second. And please remember that the "techniques" that are the easiest for everyone to accomplish safely and legally without question and have the by far the biggest impact on FE are ones that have been known and used by (not enough sadly) others long before you started pushing the world for more. It does seem that at times that fact is forgotten in all of the passion. As an fairly "objective observer" it is all too say to see repeated instances where you inadvertently create or exacerbate real or perceived negative images IMHO. For many reasons I would say that your passion is both your greatest strength and your greatest weakness at various times.

Bye.

mike, i personally appreciate what you have said and that you took the time to say it. i agree with a lot of what you pointed out, and i think have mentioned it in other threads.

i think there is a time to strive for as high a number as possible, as we did in the fuel economy championships. there is also a time to show people we are responsible and safety minded, and can settle for a little less FE.

i have done both, i can FAS with the best of 'em (at least i think i can), but i am not comfortable with a lot of the more extreme techniques on a daily basis. yet i can still pull into the lot at work with close to 70MPG.

if we are going to influence more and more drivers, and i sincerely hope we can, since things out there are so totally out of control that i hate going anywhere any more, we have to make it "the norm".

since we have stated many times, if everyone just slowed to the speed limit, we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil substantially. but we can't expect everyone to be as dedicated to it as we are, we must present it in the safest way possible. we know what we personally can do ourselves, but like in anything, we can't expect everyone to do the same amount.

and you make a very good point about respect. i agree. but i also agree that we seem, in many cases, to not get respect right from the get go in many of the interviews we have done, particularly in the comments that we see. however, you are right, and we must not sink to their level.

thank you for your thoughtful input.

and for anyone else.......this response is just my humble opinion, if sorceresses can ever be humble :o...get the pumpkin

Hi Mike:

___An excellent response and one many of us should heed including myself. You should write articles for a living because that one was a doozey!

___I did want to question you on safety features being disabled. You know that happens when you FAS for the time it takes to boot up but afterwards your safety systems are up and running, right? We all need to install FAS switches to alleviate the POST I guess.

___WRT airline safety, can you comment on airlines being partially fueled. I can understand the fuel costs of lifting excess fuel up to 37,000 feet but BINGO fuel in an airline is moving towards that same edge that we are balancing each and every day.

___100% above the EPA is available just using the basics as was achieved in the MDX yesterday while taking the family to O’Hare and the Accord while taking Chuck to the same last week. All it entailed was following the speed limits, DWL and DWB with the proper setup in the Chicagoland area. I could have thrown the book at the MDX and possibly pulled 40 mpg but 37 was not bad while being one of the few if not the only one on the road “following every rule” and being 100% legal.

___About two months ago, I changed my Hypermiling Clinics outline in that I use a “show everything including FAS’ing” on the mostly desolate country roadway while leaving the area and using the basics including DWL, DWB, Rabbit Timing, shutting down a light and fuel cut decel’s on the way back. Students know the difference in both the thought process and procedure involved as well as what the two allow in terms of real world FE increases vs. just driving it. The Basics usually allow 50 to 100% over the EPA while the Advanced usually allow 75 - 125% over.

CBS News - Bianaca Solorzano did not go from 43.x to 79.z mpg in that Prius while breaking any law but she was above the speed limit as most are when she achieved the lowly 43.x in the Prius. Only because she did not know any better. You have to love the Prius for all it does and why I also encourage everyone to place it on or near the top of their A-list when shopping for a new vehicle.

___Finally, what is CleanMPG’s goal. Saving fuel for the benefit of all let alone ourselves. The legalities or “illegalities” of various techniques is why I started this thread and from the replies so far, the bases are being covered albeit with a lot of gray. As hybridization becomes commonplace, this threads purpose will disappear and personally, I cannot wait!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

...
was saddened by recently watching a new member who obviously had a very mature and wise perspective on the trade-offs between safety and improving FE be chased away fairly rapidly. He understood the intangible value of practices such as wearing shoes, etc. and was willing to forgo potential fuel savings. If you want a huge lesson in understanding what it really looks like to "put safety first" look at his thoughts. If you or your family was ever in a terrible accident on the highway, he is absolutely the guy you would want to stop to help you first. How many of you had thought how he really seemed like the kind of guy you would want to be first to your family's vehicle after a crash, yet never got that it was mostly due to his contrasting (from your) opinion on safety issues that made him that guy? While he got kind of testy at some sarcastic remarks, I also felt when I read it that the subsequent commenter was making fun of him in a sarcastic manner more than he was joking around with him. Not an entirely uncommon occurrence here I might add. I also am fairly bewildered at how a group seems to so consistently demand respect from others (the press, AAA, etc.) by talking about them so disrespectfully? Sure, sometimes they are wrong about certain things, or generalize their comments more than is appropriately negative to the organization, but damn, how much respect or consideration could you ever possibly hope to earn (key word, earn) when so much disrespect is shown to those with whom you disagree? I can honestly say that this last observation is truly what has turned me off to the site. It is also becoming way too hard to sift through all of "homemade rocket science" and the apparent anger and resentment of the government, the automakers, and the industry groups just to find a morsel of helpful information that helps improve my FE without compromising safety in any way.



I don't enjoy offending people, but when I replied to the post about not wanting to take off the shoes I read it as a rude response to a well-meant advice and replied a bit sharp because of that (and maybe because of being a norwegian - known for our rude behaviour and hopeless social skills )

When I afterwards re-read his post, I saw that it might not have been meant that way, but for sure he did not go out of his way to be polite either, so the following explosion was not very necessary from his side.

If you track his posts, you will see that he came here for Scangauge info (to track transmission temperatures), and not for hypermiling advice for his 96 Suburban and 97 Explorer.

Otherwise I read your article with great interest. I have always been above average aware of safety and I would f.ex never consider FAS'ing an auto.

As for FAS'ing a manual I rarely do it but _do_ think with proper training one could do that safely (proper gear selected, foot on cluth ready to drop it, regularly practicing the emergency maneuver).

Think of it, fresh drivers have to practice emergency braking too, and divers have to practice (at least mentally) the lead-belt-release/emergency-west trigger, skydivers practice chute-release etc. Aviation guys like you know this very well of course.

I am seriously working on installing an electric vacuum pump to my brake system (something that is readily available in diesel, electric and hybrid cars), to be able to safely FAS towards red lights and in congested traffic.

For high speed driving the idle consumption is so low that I do not consider FAS necessary anyway, so loss of airbags/PS is not a worry.

Virginia law:
§ 46.2-811. Coasting prohibited.

The driver of any motor vehicle traveling on a downgrade on any highway shall not coast with the gears of the vehicle in neutral.

(Code 1950, § 46-218; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-200; 1989, c. 727.)
I think I hear an echo. ;)

Tracker,
While I don't intend to defend your argument that being cavalier about safety is a bad thing (a point you never proved relative to our efforts), your parallels to aviation safety standards (I am a private pilot) appear to me to miss the main ingredients and effects of this board.
This is not an industry driven or a particularly industry sympathetic site. And if it becomes so, it will lose me and, I suspect, most of its subscribers. We're not down the middle SUV drivers, responsive shoppers to GM's latest BS or illiterates. We grew up in the Internet Age.
We're about pushing the envelope, being a nudge, questioning, testing, and sharing our results with each other. It's not about trying to lead the nation to improve gas mileage by 1-2%, sympathizing with why it is soooo hard for carmakers to be profitable and fuel efficient under their current regulatory burdens, or to keep little ladies in big SUVs from endangering more of us than they already do.
We are skeptical, not ashamed to be anti-authoritarian denialists (strikes one and two) and loose canon corporate athiests (strike three). And when it comes to CT cops, we're apparently downright outlaws. So be it. We're looking for our Hole in the Wall.
We're not advocating pulsing and gliding airplanes. (As an aviator, I'm also well aware of how fuel weight and safety trade-offs are made all the time.) We are advocating pulsing and gliding our land craft. It's safe. I saves huge amounts of fuel and emissions. And it's legality stems from another culture. Yours.
We disagree fundamentally, but I also appreciate effort you put into your essay. It may be persuasive to the status quo. But, at least in my view, it is mostly irrelevant to us here.

What I think is a close analogy in aviation to what goes on here is a group of pilots in Alaska who have perfected short landing/takeoff techniques on rough terrain. It's pretty amazing, but they are very very focused on safety. I can't help thinking that a large safety factor in what they do is the low speeds at which they are flying, another analogy to what we do here. The site is:

http://www.bigrockslongprops.com/

They are pushing the envelope certainly but are at the same time very mindful of the risks. It would be easy to call them nuts if one was not aware of the many precautions that they take. Perhaps short rough terrain landings are a bit less significant/relevant than improving FE.

I'm also uncomfortable with blanket statements that a method such as FAS is too dangerous. It depends on the vehicle: many Insights, mine included, have been modified so that FAS involves simply pushing a button to stop injection of fuel. The ICE stops, but airbags and computers are never down, steering assist is electric, sensor in the brake booster refires the ICE if the vac gets too low, and engine restarts when you put the shifter into gear. So where's the problem?

it would be my dream that newer cars will have systems like this built in.

OTOH I have to key-off the Subaru so I did not FAS it for most of the past two years. More recently, I have begun FAS-ing it, but only in situations where I feel it is safe and will net some mpg improvement. So it also depends on the driver and on the situation. Like anything one does in driving, it is not safe in all cars under all situations for all drivers.

The recommendation here not to use anything one feels uncomfortable with is a good one, as is the constantly repeated recommendation to test new methods out at low speeds in safe places.

from California Vehicle Codes:
Coasting Prohibited
21710. The driver of a motor vehicle when traveling on down grade upon any highway shall not coast with the gears of such vehicle in neutral.

Pretty much what everyone else has posted.

Florida, 2007:

316.2024 Coasting prohibited.--The driver of any motor vehicle, when traveling upon a downgrade, shall not coast with the gears or transmission of such vehicle in neutral or the clutch disengaged. A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.

History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 154, ch. 99-248.

Note.--Former s. 316.094.

Can't find anything for PA explicity, but did find this (http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/pub_223/section_12.pdf) from the PA Driver's Test:

Unsafe coasting occurs when your vehicle is out of gear (clutch depressed or gearshift in neutral) for
more than the length of your vehicle.

When operating any commercial vehicle, do not ride the clutch, race the engine, change gears or
coast while driving down the grade. At the bottom of the grade, be sure to cancel your 4-way
flashers.

CLUTCH USAGE (FOR MANUAL TRANSMISSION)
• Do not ride clutch to control speed, coast with the clutch depressed, or "pop" the clutch.

I posted them in this (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=129879) thread but haven't gotten any feedback on it (yet).

Also this other thread: 'Hypermiling Legal Constraints (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3361&highlight=Legality+coasting&page=3)

Very short post. Coasting is prohibited in NY. I am a lot safer now than i was before. Now I FAS, ( I don't nice on coast) I am very comfortable with it and just like everything else, has a learning curve.

Here is another weird Maryland law, that seems to prohibit use of 4-way flashers to let people know to pass you:

f) Use of signal lamps.- The signals provided for in § 21-605 (b) and (c) of this subtitle:

(1) May be used to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a stopped, standing, or parked position; and

(2) May not be flashed as a courtesy or "do pass" signal to the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear.

I'll have to check into the meaning of this.

I went looking for more on this and I think the signals referred to here are the turn signal. I couldn't find anything that refer to the emergency flashers.

Hi Mike, I did wait for the "industry" to come forward with great ideas for increasing MPGs. They did not. I waited for over 35 years Mike, and I never heard from you or the tire manufacturers or the automobile manufacturers.

It is my fervent belief that if Wayne had not come up with Hypermiling, we would not be having this discussion, and neither you nor I would be here.

If Hypermiling had not come up with these techniques, there would be a big goose egg at the top of this screen.

As to safety and risk, I asked you for an actual number of how much risk I am taking, by pumping my tires up to Max Sidewall, and then slowing down and increasing my buffer between cars. No response.

You can take offense that some here have not agreed with you, and that is fine. That is not disrespect, just that you have failed to make your case such that all can understand. I personally disagree with a lot of your safety/risk engagements. I couldn't fly in an airplane unless the Wright brothers were willing to take a risk that they decided was acceptable.

Sometimes we need to step out and try something to prove it, when no one else seems to be stepping up to the plate. There will always be those that disagree, some strongly, as in the earth is flat. I think that totally disregarding the experience and skills, and safety training of many on this site, is not being realistic.

Good stuff guys,

But I gotta tell ya, I fas 24/7 and have always had full control. I now drive safer, much slower, and my chances of "slamming" into something are now insanely lower than ever in my life. I drove "normal" over the speed limit - illegal - for years.

Now, I am one less idiot threat on the road now only because of Hypermiling. Cars' trunks grow farther away from me when I drive dwb where before I was much closer to a guys tail in "normal safe" driving. I feel so much more prepared to catch something far, far ahead before it ever gets into my zipcode. Anyone who puts this into practice can easily see how ridiculous it is to even try to say fasing, or nice-on is ever dangerous on FLAT roads. With safe remote proper practice it is the safest form of driving you will ever do.
The real killer of drivers? Inattention. Hypermilers are the opposite of that.

andy

More of the same in AZ
28-895. Coasting prohibited

A. The driver of a motor vehicle traveling on a downgrade shall not coast with the gears of the vehicle in neutral.

B. The driver of a commercial motor vehicle traveling on a downgrade shall not coast with the clutch disengaged.

Fixed in time: The part that leads me to think they are talking about 4-way flashers is the "or start from a stopped, standing, or parked position; and (2) May not be flashed as a courtesy or "do pass" signal to the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear."

The reason I'm led to think this is speaking about 4-way flashers, is that when trucks move from a stopped, standing, or parked position, they use their 4-way flashers to indicate that they have not yet come up to speed. Yet, those same flashers are not to be used as a courtesy or a "do pass" signal.

Please tell me how you could possibly use a turn signal to tell someone to pass? If, on a 4 lane highway, you use a left signal, you are indicating an intention to pull into the next lane to the left. If you are in the right lane (and we are), use of the right turn signal indicates either you are taking the next exit, or are pulling onto the shoulder.

Only the 4-way flashers give the unambigious message to pass, and that is seemingly against Maryland law. They apparently want you to use your flashers to indicate you are not moving.

I remember a lady friend who drove her T-Bird with its flashers on, and the MSP pulled her over and gave her a ticket. Said it was against the law to have your flashers on while you were simply driving.

So, believe what you may about the Maryland law. It is not always very objective as I'd like. For instance, what is an "improved" roadway?

It would appear that Kansas is the same as the others on NICE-Ons.

8-1580
Chapter 8.--AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER VEHICLES
Article 15.--UNIFORM ACT REGULATING TRAFFIC; RULES OF THE ROAD
8-1580. Coasting prohibited. (a) The driver of any motor vehicle when traveling upon a down grade shall not coast with the gears or transmission of such vehicle in neutral.

(b) The driver of a truck or bus when traveling upon a down grade shall not coast with the clutch disengaged.

History: L. 1974, ch. 33, § 8-1580; July 1.

Please tell me how you could possibly use a turn signal to tell someone to pass? If, on a 4 lane highway, you use a left signal, you are indicating an intention to pull into the next lane to the left. If you are in the right lane (and we are), use of the right turn signal indicates either you are taking the next exit, or are pulling onto the shoulder.

This is really my own speculation, but I think you have to remember that they write these rules for those who think before they act. They think one way when the same action could have multiple meanings - it is just that the guy only thinks of the one reason - and it is not a good one.

So my guess is that someone is sitting on the side of the road and they want to tell everyone to go on by. So instead of putting on their flashers, the put their turn signal on to tell the other drivers just to go on by them - it does not occur to them that the drivers may think that they are signaling that they are about to pull back into traffic.

Run500mph, or anyone else who's been on this thread, can you elaborate on FAS please? As I read the glossary, it refers to hybrid vehicles, but someone mentioned doing it with a Subie. I have NICE-on'd my WRX down a long hill to my driveway, and all the way into the garage, hitting 45 at the most, and barely coasting to a stop at home--about 3/4 mile total. I quit doing it after my SGII indicates fuel cutoff occurs when coasting in gear down to about 1000 rpm; I theoretically should be saving more fuel that way. I had tried NICE-off and I lost too much--PS, PB, signals, etc.--to be comfortable with it. If that's the FASing you're talking about Run500mph, I would debate that you're in full control.

This is a fascinating thread, I must say!

A NICE-off is essentially a FAS, from the sound of it you need to turn the key back into the on position. That way your signals and other electronics work. It is true that most cars will lose power steering and brakes, at speed (for my car above about 30 MPH) steering is nearly effortless. The only time I really have to work the wheel is under about 10 MPH. You can still press the brakes 3-4 times before having to really press hard. I recommend trying in a vacant parking lot or something of the sort. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that with a manual transmission FASing will cause no problems to your car.

Yes, there should be no mechanical damage from FAS-ing an MT. Showbizk, you don't say what trans you have, but I have FAS'd my MT Subaru Outback many times no problem.

As damionk says, you need to turn the key back to the same position it was in when you were driving along with the ICE on and you should have turn signals, etc. My DRL's don't go on unless the ICE is running but the headlights do, so I simply leave the headlights in the on position during the day.

I get at least two brake applications before the vac assist is gone, and the steering gets heavier but is not a problem for me.

Like you, I did not feel comfortable FAS-ing my Outback for quite a while. Lately I've started doing it in select conditions where I feel it will be beneficial and safe. The situation is different in the Insight and I FAS that a LOT.

If you don't feel it is safe then definitely don't FAS.

Thanks lightfoot, and damionk, I wasn't concerned with any mechanical damage to the car (M5) from ICE-off coasting, just the concern (and I have experienced it and don't like it!) of heavier steering, and less braking. As I said, I could ICE-off coast all the way into the garage (and my son thought that was really cool!), but the last two right-angle left turns into my street and driveway were not without significant effort! I'm not comfortable with it and wouldn't do it any more. My biggest point was the SGii indicating MPG 9999 as the cutoff is activated with 5th gear engaged coasting. If it's literally true, I gain nothing by ICE-off coasting, and actually lose a teeny bit NICE-on coasting. If the SGii is deriving something that isn't really happening of course, that's a different ballgame. Any thoughts from SGii users? (My cutoff is set to 14, the idle TPS is 10, FYI).

If you coast in gear, foot off the gas, yes you will get fuel cutoff down to roughly 1000rpm, where the computer feeds in gas at idle level. However you won't coast as far as you would in neutral, ICE-ON or -OFF.

If you coast ICE-OFF, you use zero gas all the way down to 0mph, and you coast further because there is no engine drag. Which means that you don't have to resume burning gas as soon, or that you can begin the coast at a lower speed and so not burn gas to build momentum to offset the engine drag.

Obviously there are situations where you have excess speed and will have to stop for a light or stop sign, so you can coast in gear and use the fuel cutoff to burn no fuel, avoid using your brakes, and shed unnecessary momentum.

So really you have three methods at your disposal:
(1) ICE-ON coasting in gear (as long as you are above idle)
(2) NICE-ON coasting in neutral
(3) NICE-OFF coasting in neutral (aka FAS)

You can choose whichever the situation warrants AND you feel safe with.

At higher speeds power steering is less necessary (and may even be phased out by speed-sensitive assist).