Car System Could Save 7,000 Lives a Year

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 28, 2004 | KAREN LUNDEGAARD

[steveegg]

Why bother to drive anymore? Smart highways, black box-capable cars? Just put me in a stroller and wheel me to work.

That's the plan.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It turns out that in a 1996 study, vehicles equipped with ABS were overall no less likely to be involved in fatal accidents than vehicles without. The study actually stated that although cars with ABS were less likely to be involved in accidents fatal to the occupants of other cars, they are more likely to be involved in accidents fatal to the occupants of the ABS car, especially single-vehicle accidents.

Source

[Shryke]

Ok. Was that supposed to go to me? I don't understand. I'm talking steel spikes, not ABS.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

December 10, 1996

ANTILOCK BRAKES DON'T REDUCE FATAL CRASHES;
PEOPLE IN CARS WITH ANTILOCKS ARE AT GREATER RISK

ARLINGTON, VA -- Cars with antilock brakes are more likely than cars without them to be in crashes fatal to their own occupants. In particular, antilock cars are more likely to be in fatal single-vehicle crashes. These are the findings of a new Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study comparing the fatal crash experience of cars with antilocks and otherwise identical models with regular brakes.

"These findings add to evidence that antilocks aren't producing overall safety benefits," Institute President Brian O'Neill points out. According to previous Highway Loss Data Institute research, antilocks aren't reducing the frequency or cost of insurance claims for vehicle damage. Federal studies also show no overall benefits.

For the Institute's study, researchers separated fatal crashes according to who died -- occupants of antilock cars, occupants of other vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists. At the same time, researchers looked at type of crash -- single-vehicle, multiple-vehicle, rollover, or run-off-the-road. The largest increase in the incidence of crashes fatal to people in antilock cars occurred in single-vehicle impacts. Smaller increases were found in the risk of multiple-vehicle crashes fatal to people in vehicles with antilocks. For occupants of other vehicles and nonoccupants (bicyclists, pedestrians), results were less clear. For one group of vehicles studied (1992 General Motors cars with standard antilocks), the risk of fatal crashes decreased. But this effect wasn't found for other models that had adopted antilocks earlier.

"We don't know why antilocks aren't producing the benefits many people expected," O'Neill says. "Drivers might feel overconfident and drive faster or take more risks. They might pump brakes or not hit the pedal hard enough so the antilock feature isn't activated. Drivers might react to pedal feedback from antilocks and ease off the brakes, which deactivates antilocks. Or they could be braking hard and wrenching the wheel in emergencies to avoid one type of crash while steering into another. It could be any of these, a combination, or something else. We need more study to find out why antilocks are impressive on the test track but not on the road."

Consumers "need to keep a couple of things in mind," O'Neill suggests. "One is that antilocks have more to do with maintaining control in potential emergencies than stopping on a dime. And remember not to pump antilocks, as drivers have been taught to do in emergencies. It's a good idea to try antilocks out. When it's wet, go somewhere off-road like a parking lot and practice hard braking so the antilock feature is engaged. See how the brakes feel because it's important to 'unlearn' past braking habits and keep hard, continuous brake pressure instead."

[coder2]

Thanks ! (and also thanks for letting me know my question wasn't dumb)...

We recently purchased a Yukon XL ---- salesperson kept telling us we wanted the stabilitrak, but could never answer our reasons why we would or even what it was... Just kept saying, extra $1000 for it and we would want it.. HUH ???

So I did some research of our own then, and what I found out sounded similar to what was posted here, but I wasn't sure

[monday]

"Jeffrey Runge, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said in an interview in September that if research continued to show such strong results, he would consider mandating stability control."

The safety Nazis won't be happy until cars cost so much only the rich can afford them.

[LizardQueen]

They're piling one expensive gadget on after another, but completely ignoring the fact that most drivers are abysmally trained.

Once around the block, parallel park, and now you can go ripping down the superslab at 80 mph. But you're encased in a car that has 10K worth of mandated "safety features" and one day will pretty much drive itself so somehow that's ok.... Dumb dumb dumb.

My plan - make all that crap optional, and mandate only better driver training.

And the day my car drives itself is the day I turn in my keys for good. I drive a stick because I like the total control, when that's taken away from me I may as well take a bus.

LQ

[HamiltonJay]

I am reminded of the "HELP" system in the Airbus that would refuse Pilot input if it decided the pilot needed help.... ended up crashing one of their big planes into the ground..... killing all abord.

[Getready]

Yeah, of course. The machines we are using are starting to
get beyound our human capabilities.

That's why robotic fighters will soon be used. They travel
so fast and turn so hard, the G-forces will soon be able
to knock the pilot out. Already, pilots have to wear pressure
suits, and need how to learn how to keep blood pressure to the brain
so that they don't pass out in their high G turns.

Don't forget, many, many people die from falls in their
own home. Couple that propensity with a huge, high tech
machine, and you could have recipe for lots of disasters...

[OrioleFan]

Tagline was lifted fro the book The Wit and Wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

[sully777]

Imagine a stability system in 1968 Oldsmobiles: The world would be far different for U-Boat Teddy.

[brianl703]

It'd be nice if most drivers could handle merging onto an interstate highway, but that's one thing they don't even bother to teach in driver's ed.

[gura]

All of these Stability Control systems turn the vehicles into understeering pigs.

Screw it, I'm going to go buy something wierd and old, like a 71 Volvo P1800.

[Tweak]

Your Airbus expertise would be helpful here.

[Tweak]

Oops - I meant to refernce post 28:

I am reminded of the "HELP" system in the Airbus that would refuse Pilot input if it decided the pilot needed help.... ended up crashing one of their big planes into the ground..... killing all abord.

I'm guessing that this refers to a mutated version of the A320 Habsheim crash.

[HairOfTheDog]

My solution: 1. Remove all driver's side seatbelts and airbags. 2. Weld an 8 inch steel spike to the center of the steering wheel. Input?

ROTFL!

[Shryke]

Brilliant, right? Not even the worst agressive a-hole would think about going driving poorly.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's very good!

[Truthsayer20]

Have any of you ever driven a car with a modern stability control system? My BMW has one and it works great and really is useful especially in winter conditions! Each wheel's power and/or ABS brakes are automatically and separately modulated if the computer detects lose of traction, a sideways slide etc. Simply put the system makes the car go in the direction the steering is pointed (at if this is physically possible).

You gotta love German automotive engineering!

[brianl703]

How does what you described differ from the traction control that Ford used on several models that can detect a spinning wheel and apply the brake to that wheel to transfer power to the other wheel, as well as to cut back on the throttle?