Read this before you buy
Tom Adams
seatbelt. It will be required on all 2012 cars, but it's still
optional or not available on some 2010 and 2011 models:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Effectiveness
Dillon Pyron
ESC is for idiots who drive their top heavy SUV at speeds that are
beyond their ability to control them.
Yes, the seatbelt was a major, major safety component, but many of the
recent "safety" devices are for people who are too stupid to take
responsility for thier actions or too stupid to understand the limits
of thier abilities and the capabilities of their cars.
--
- dillon I am not invalid
Toby (Tri-Umph That's the Sweet Truth)
March 1998 - June 2010
What a dog. What a dog!
Dave Garrett
invalid...@austin.rr.com says...
> Thus spake Tom Adams <tada...@yahoo.com> :
>
> >ESC is considered to be the greatest advance in safety since the
> >seatbelt. It will be required on all 2012 cars, but it's still
> >optional or not available on some 2010 and 2011 models:
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Effectiveness
>
> ESC is for idiots who drive their top heavy SUV at speeds that are
> beyond their ability to control them.
>
> Yes, the seatbelt was a major, major safety component, but many of the
> recent "safety" devices are for people who are too stupid to take
> responsility for thier actions or too stupid to understand the limits
> of thier abilities and the capabilities of their cars.
I was not entirely surprised but definitely dismayed to discover, via a
passing comment in a recent thread, that TPMS has apparently become
federally mandated on all new cars. More complexity, more cost, more
unnecessary weight. Guess I'm going to keep driving older cars until I
either can't get parts anymore to keep them running, or I get too old to
remember or care what real driving used to be like.
Dave "get off my lawn"
ACAR
check the hype re. ABS
it was supposed to be the greatest safety advance since the
seatbelt...
jim beam
indeed.
e.s.c. hype somehow completely misses the fact that since the exploder
fiasco, not only frod but many other suv manufacturers have transitioned
to lower vehicles with wider wheel bases and even more importantly,
independent rear suspension. with that and mandatory driver skid
training, you could do without e.s.c. tpms and abs too.
an interesting abs quote:
"Risk compensation
Anti-lock brakes are the subject of some experiments centred around risk
compensation theory, which asserts that drivers adapt to the safety
benefit of ABS by driving more aggressively. In a Munich study, half a
fleet of taxicabs was equipped with anti-lock brakes, while the other
half had conventional brake systems. The crash rate was substantially
the same for both types of cab, and Wilde concludes this was due to
drivers of ABS-equipped cabs taking more risks, assuming that ABS would
take care of them, while the non-ABS drivers drove more carefully since
ABS would not be there to help in case of a dangerous situation. A
similar study was carried out in Oslo, with similar results."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
ACAR
snip
>
> I was not entirely surprised but definitely dismayed to discover, via a
> passing comment in a recent thread, that TPMS has apparently become
> federally mandated on all new cars. More complexity, more cost, more
> unnecessary weight. Guess I'm going to keep driving older cars until I
> either can't get parts anymore to keep them running, or I get too old to
> remember or care what real driving used to be like.
>
> Dave "get off my lawn"
Simple TPMS systems operate by using the ABS system to detect
differences in tire rotation and add no weight, only minimal
complexity and that idiot light on the dash. My 1998 Sienna had that.
In 250,000 miles it provided useful information twice and probably
saved a tire once. However, it failed to detect small pressure drops
due to slow leaks. I'd find these first.
My 2010 Sienna has a new TPMS; using detectors in each wheel, costing
me $38 each when installed by The Tire Rack. I have to get these
sensors initialized at the dealership before they'll work Presumably,
this new system will detect slow leaks. We'll see.
Tony Harding
Was there *any* data to support that <ridiculous> conclusion?
So we all drive more recklessly because we have seat belts? Door crash
bars? Rear view mirror? ...
jim beam
the cite was quoted in the linked version.
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
>
> So we all drive more recklessly because we have seat belts? Door crash
> bars? Rear view mirror? ...
technically, we almost certainly do.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Gordon McGrew
>On 10/08/2010 05:10 AM, ACAR wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 8:46?am, Tom Adams<tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ESC is considered to be the greatest advance in safety since the
>>> seatbelt. ?It will be required on all 2012 cars, but it's still
>>> optional or not available on some 2010 and 2011 models:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Effectiveness
>>
>> check the hype re. ABS
>> it was supposed to be the greatest safety advance since the
>> seatbelt...
>
>indeed.
>
>e.s.c. hype somehow completely misses the fact that since the exploder
>fiasco, not only frod but many other suv manufacturers have transitioned
>to lower vehicles with wider wheel bases and even more importantly,
>independent rear suspension. with that and mandatory driver skid
>training, you could do without e.s.c. tpms and abs too.
>
>an interesting abs quote:
>
>"Risk compensation
>
>Anti-lock brakes are the subject of some experiments centred around risk
>compensation theory, which asserts that drivers adapt to the safety
>benefit of ABS by driving more aggressively. In a Munich study, half a
>fleet of taxicabs was equipped with anti-lock brakes, while the other
>half had conventional brake systems. The crash rate was substantially
>the same for both types of cab, and Wilde concludes this was due to
>drivers of ABS-equipped cabs taking more risks, assuming that ABS would
>take care of them, while the non-ABS drivers drove more carefully since
>ABS would not be there to help in case of a dangerous situation. A
>similar study was carried out in Oslo, with similar results."
>
>from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system
We should also consider the alternate theory that ABS doesn't do shit.
Oh yeah, theoretically it provides greater control when braking, but
in the real world I don't think it has ever been shown to reduce
accidents.
jim beam
abs is great for my grandmother. her reactions are so slow, and her
vehicle control so poor, anything that stops her locking the wheels and
drifting off into oblivion is going to be an improvement.
similarly, it's great for planes where the systems react slow and
there's no feedback for the pilot, trains where the the systems react
slow and there's no feedback for the driver, and trucks, well, you get
the idea.
cars though, it really depends on the driver. and the road conditions.
if it's snowy or muddy, i don't want abs. it it's icy, and i'm only
driving in straight lines, i probably do. if it's rainy, maybe i do,
maybe i don't. if it's dry, i definitely don't.
and finally, don't forget, the dirty little secret of modern "crash
safe" cars is that because they're so much heavier, you just can't
control or stop the things like you can a lighter car - they're getting
up there with trucks and trains. "crash safe" also means "crash likely".
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Dillon Pyron
Same with DRL. Note that collissions that were supposed to be
prevented by DRL have returned to about the same (using the miles
driven quanitier) as 2 years prior to the major use. Motorcycles
don't seem to be any more immune to getting whacked by "us" even
though they all have headlights on.
The highmount brakelight doesn't seem to have reduced rear end
collisions.
Stupid people adapt stupid behavior to suit conditions. Highmount
brakelight? Just get used to it. ABS? Start driving into situations
where it won't help. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (thank you, Mr.
Brenner)
jim beam
> In article<gZWdndRJuNtkHCvR...@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> abs is great for my grandmother. her reactions are so slow, and her
>> vehicle control so poor, anything that stops her locking the wheels and
>> drifting off into oblivion is going to be an improvement.
>
> She would just hang onto the wheel for dear life and let the car go
> straight into the obstacle ahead.
which is what she's done. but cars are generally ok in front-rear
collisions. it's pretty much impossible to offer equivalent protection
for side impacts.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
jim beam
> Thus spake ACAR<dimndson...@yahoo.com> :
>
>> On Sep 30, 8:46�am, Tom Adams<tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ESC is considered to be the greatest advance in safety since the
>>> seatbelt. �It will be required on all 2012 cars, but it's still
>>> optional or not available on some 2010 and 2011 models:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Effectiveness
>>
>> check the hype re. ABS
>> it was supposed to be the greatest safety advance since the
>> seatbelt...
>
> Same with DRL. Note that collissions that were supposed to be
> prevented by DRL have returned to about the same (using the miles
> driven quanitier) as 2 years prior to the major use.
i know i sound like a crazy whack-job, but drl's are courtesy of our
friends in the oil business, not based on safety research.
drl's run at ~80W. fuel conversion is ~30%. that's an extra 260W worth
of gasoline required every time you switch on your car. multiply that
by the ~135,000,000 cars on the road, and suddenly, you're selling a lot
more gasoline.
oh, and let's ignore the nimrods who, because they have drl's and can
see the road, albeit dimly, don't think to turn on their lights at night
now.
> Motorcycles
> don't seem to be any more immune to getting whacked by "us" even
> though they all have headlights on.
>
> The highmount brakelight doesn't seem to have reduced rear end
> collisions.
but it means people can drive with two bulbs out, not just one!
>
> Stupid people adapt stupid behavior to suit conditions. Highmount
> brakelight? Just get used to it. ABS? Start driving into situations
> where it won't help. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera (thank you, Mr.
> Brenner)
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Howard Lester
> i know i sound like a crazy whack-job, but drl's are courtesy of our
> friends in the oil business, not based on safety research.
Oncoming cars that are dark in color I have trouble seeing initially unless
their headlights (or "parking" lights) are on. Dark cars tend to blend in
with the background and/or the gray road surface. I spot light colored cars
at a distance much more easily -- DRL's or not. My current and previous two
cars are white -- I like to be seen!
ACAR
wrote:
snip
> We should also consider the alternate theory that ABS doesn't do shit.
> Oh yeah, theoretically it provides greater control when braking, but
> in the real world I don't think it has ever been shown to reduce
> accidents.
I'll bet ABS has benefit in pickups and other vehicles where balanced
braking is difficult to achieve. Jim Beam correctly points out that
there are situations that call for wheel lock-up. But even on a dry
road there are some vehicles that defy 4-wheel threshold braking
regardless of driver skill.
Tony Harding
> Thus spake ACAR<dimndson...@yahoo.com> :
>
>> On Sep 30, 8:46 am, Tom Adams<tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ESC is considered to be the greatest advance in safety since the
>>> seatbelt. It will be required on all 2012 cars, but it's still
>>> optional or not available on some 2010 and 2011 models:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control#Effectiveness
>>
>> check the hype re. ABS
>> it was supposed to be the greatest safety advance since the
>> seatbelt...
>
> Same with DRL. Note that collissions that were supposed to be
> prevented by DRL have returned to about the same (using the miles
> driven quanitier) as 2 years prior to the major use. Motorcycles
> don't seem to be any more immune to getting whacked by "us" even
> though they all have headlights on.
>
> The highmount brakelight doesn't seem to have reduced rear end
> collisions.
>
> Stupid people adapt stupid behavior to suit conditions. Highmount
> brakelight? Just get used to it.
And that, IMHO, is the essence of so many changes; sound good on paper,
might look good in controlled studies, but once applied across the board
become part of the white noise. If we cycled them in/out every 3/4
years, people might continue to notice them; but I'd never suggest that.