9% fuel saved, AA DriveTech & EST begin eco driver training.

News
20/06/2016

Initial analysis of nearly 1,900 on-road coaching sessions, show drivers can achieve over 9% fuel savings (9.4%#) when incorporating eco techniques into their standard driver training courses.

The initiative integrates the EST training methods into AA DriveTech’s courses, with each driver completing two laps of a pre-defined road circuit which simulates a full range of common driving scenarios.

Comparative fuel economy figures and average speed figures are recorded for each circuit both before and after the driver receives practical and easy to follow coaching; each driver is given a driver report to show what they’ve achieved on the day.

With an average saving of 9% on fuel costs, if sustained throughout the year a typical business driver covering 12,000 miles a year could expect to see annual savings of £180 to £210*, says EST.

Research by EST on pilot schemes showed that 99% of drivers found the techniques learned during the training to be useful for their day-to-day driving, with many achieving much higher savings than expected on the day.

Andy Wheeler, Head of the Training Academy with AA DriveTech said “An immediate fuel saving of 9% is a great result as our programme is focused on ‘real world’ training in real-life driving situations. Our coaching techniques are completely practical and also deliver additional safety benefits due to the increased focus by drivers on anticipating the driving hazards ahead”.

Bob Saynor, Energy Saving Trust, Driver Training Consultant, says “We’re delighted to achieve these figures and it’s completely consistent with our expectations. By building an eco-component into their core driver training, AA DriveTech has started to educate drivers about eco driving skills and delivering safety messages at the same time.”

*Based on an average petrol price of 116p/litre and average diesel price of 121p/litre

# Results achieved between July 2015 and May 2016 for 1,900 drivers where data was collected and analysed. Results of more or less than a 35% change in fuel consumption changes between run 1 and 2 are not included.