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

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!

In article >,
says...
> 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.

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"

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...

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.

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

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? ...

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

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.

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