If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
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/Electro...#Effectiveness |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
Thus spake Tom Adams > :
>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/Electro...#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. -- - dillon I am not invalid Toby (Tri-Umph That's the Sweet Truth) March 1998 - June 2010 What a dog. What a dog! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
On Sep 30, 8:46*am, Tom Adams > 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/Electro...#Effectiveness check the hype re. ABS it was supposed to be the greatest safety advance since the seatbelt... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
On Oct 4, 6:41*pm, Dave Garrett > wrote:
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
On 10/08/2010 05:10 AM, ACAR wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:46�am, Tom > 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/Electro...#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 -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
On 10/08/10 15:30, jim beam wrote:
> On 10/08/2010 05:10 AM, ACAR wrote: >> On Sep 30, 8:46�am, Tom > 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/Electro...#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." 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? ... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
On 10/08/2010 01:19 PM, Tony Harding wrote:
> On 10/08/10 15:30, jim beam wrote: >> On 10/08/2010 05:10 AM, ACAR wrote: >>> On Sep 30, 8:46�am, Tom > 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/Electro...#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." > > Was there *any* data to support that <ridiculous> conclusion? 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:30:36 -0700, jim beam > wrote:
>On 10/08/2010 05:10 AM, ACAR wrote: >> On Sep 30, 8:46?am, Tom > 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/Electro...#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 ****. 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Read this before you buy
On 10/13/2010 08:39 PM, Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:30:36 -0700, jim > wrote: > >> On 10/08/2010 05:10 AM, ACAR wrote: >>> On Sep 30, 8:46?am, Tom > 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/Electro...#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 ****. > 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. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Read this before you buy | Tom Adams | Technology | 30 | October 5th 10 02:14 PM |
Here you can read books free and buy all tickets | [email protected] | Technology | 0 | August 20th 06 11:15 PM |
Buy or not to buy 147 2.0 SS? | HK | Alfa Romeo | 3 | April 26th 06 07:55 PM |
Please Read: Buy a Car $50 Dollars over Dealer Cost!!!!!!!!!!! | Edward Tyshkevich | General | 0 | October 16th 04 06:12 AM |
Please Read: Buy a Car $50 Dollars over Dealer Cost!!!!!!!!!!! | Edward Tyshkevich | 4x4 | 0 | October 16th 04 06:11 AM |