My only exposure to Cruise was many years back when we hired a camper on a visit to the States. It had either a 4½ or a 7½-litre engine, and I soon stopped asking it to keep to 55mph when I realised what happened when going up hills. Consumption was bad enough as things were.

I guess Cruise is rather cleverer these days, but does it improve or worsen consumption overall ?

I’m a big fan of cruise control and see no reason at all why you wouldn’t use it in the rain. That has nothing to do with it, certainly a ‘non adaptive’ type, all it’s doing is holding the vehicle to a set speed. If it is safe to drive at 60mph, it is also safe to use cruise at 60mph. Adaptive cruise may be different, but I think it unlikely that the weather, unless absolutely terrible, would have any effect. Presumably, you would also not be able to actually use it if (due to extreme weather, or just a fault) the system wasn’t able to recognise how close a car in front is.

As for economy, depends how you drive. But it is certainly possible to get higher mpg without cruise.

As for economy, depends how you drive. But it is certainly possible to get higher mpg without cruise.

I'd dispute that. The rare occasions I've driven a car with cruise, I found I couldn't better the economy by turning the cruise off. I used to do economy runs back in the '70s, so think I know what I'm doing. I can only assume that by using cruise the car knows its optimum settings for prevailing conditions.

I will happily concede that your economy driving credentials are better than mine (I haven't any) but I'm pretty sure I can just edge the cruise control for economy. It probably depends on terrain. Cruise will always over shoot at crests for example when an alert driver will fade the power before beforehand.

To the point in an earlier post, the reason for caution in rain is that if you do happen to lose traction, possibly through aquaplaning or cornering forces, depending on the drive configuration and speed feedback source it can spin the driven wheels up. Sounds a bit unlikely, and I admit to using cruise in moderate rain on an almost empty A38 for 20 miles from South Hams to the M5 last night. I did knock it off for some of the tighter curves, I'd rather balance the throttle myself if there are corners and water involved. On/off/on doesn't bother me, my thumb's on it and I use it regularly enough not to have to fumble or think too much.

Adaptive cruise is a whole different animal. You set it at your speed lets say 60mph. It maintains a safe distance from the vehicle in front. Braking if they do stopping (almost less than 5mph it pings you and turns itself off ) or accelerates back up to your chosen speed. etc all with no extra driver input. Its smooth , safe and advanced. Comparing it with normal cruise is like comparing the Space Shuttle with a Biplane.

I wish my eyesight was as good as yours, with the ability to see who has cruise switched on and who hasn't...

Probably a throw back to the early systems which were very basic. If you started aquaplaning the cruise would continue to add power to maintain set speed.

Modern cars are far more sophisticated with adapative cruise, traction control, differential braking etc so it is probably no longer an issue.

Totally agree. We have 2 cars, one with adaptive and one with normal cruise control. I use the adaptive one almost the entire time except for when on winding country lanes. It makes driving in any form of traffic so much less stressful - just set it to the max speed limit, and then let the car handle the ebbs and flows of the traffic. Like you, I just have to remind myself when using the car with the normal cruise control that it doesn't work that way - but it still gets used most of the time when out of town. I wouldn't even consider buying a car if it didn't have cruise control, and I would definitely pay more for the adaptive version.

Have been using cruise control for many years, first used it on hired cars (America / Canada) but also had it for 16 years in the UK. Although I am aware of adaptive cruise control have never used it.

I find it is great for journeys when I want to reduce the strain of driving, make good progress (or steady progress if a slower speed) and to ensure I don't stray above a set speed. (Actually got stopped in France once when it was switched off, yes I was frog marched off the motorway but not to a cash point to empty my bank account). In traffic with variable speeds there is a possibility of ramming the vehicle in front, but that is inattentive driving, dangerous at any time. No need to touch the pedals, just disengage to allow the vehicle to slow then resume when ready to return to selected speed. As for fuel economy, by planning ahead and not braking there is no wastage of fuel accelerating to brake, but when selecting resume the engine does tend to want to race to the selected speed as quickly as possible. Also on hills the engine will work harder to maintain speed on the incline, and of course there is no engine braking on the decline so without care the selected top speed could be breached.

Wet / poor weather, I use it a lot less, using my right foot to directly regulate the speed gives better control thus safety making more use of engine gentle slowing down or braking and gentle acceleration.

I have found with all the cars with cc that I've owned have all used some from of engin breaking to maintain set speed but these were all automatic and with the lorries I've driven they have all used the exhaust break to help then maintain the set speed only on the steepest of down hill sections has it needed some help via the breaks.