Ask the Car People.SM


Stability Control, are you ready for it? - READ ONLY

588 messages,  Last post on Sep 09, 2009 at 12:57 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Car Safety

Messages Page 55 of 59

#539 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [jipster] by 210delray

Apr 10, 2007 (1:15 pm)

Replying to: jipster (Apr 10, 2007 1:10 pm)
You don't use vehicles where ESC was an option, or at least an option with a high percentage of takers.
 
You look at vehicles with standard ESC and compare them with the same vehicles without (like the model year before).
 
Again, see the IIHS link I gave earlier, or in the post below.

#540 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [jipster] by steve_ HOST

Apr 10, 2007 (1:18 pm)

Replying to: jipster (Apr 10, 2007 1:10 pm)
One CR blurb references this IIHS.org study.
 
That study says that the risk of fatal multi-car crashes are reduced by 32% and fatal single car wrecks by 56%.
 
The 40% number involves all single car wrecks, not just the fatal ones.

#542 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [rorr] by jipster

Apr 10, 2007 (1:21 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Apr 10, 2007 12:53 pm)
The sample size of those studies are such a small blip on the national radar screen though. It could be contributed to many different variables.
 
Out of all accidents on our roads, what % would ESC come into play? Judging from what I've read a small %. What % of vehicles today have ESC...I'm gussing maybe 10%? Not enough info in my book to accurately guage real-world benefits. Though there are certainly some. I would like to see what these accident/fatality rates are in 5-10 years when most vehicles on the road are equipped with ESC.

#543 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [jipster] by kyfdx HOST

Apr 10, 2007 (1:29 pm)

Replying to: jipster (Apr 10, 2007 1:21 pm)
I think the percentage is probably higher for fatal accidents..
 
For instance, rollover accidents result in a high number of fatalities... ESC prevents these types of accidents by keeping the vehicle from leaving the roadway...
 
Sure, fender-benders from inattention, or backing accidents in parking lots won't be helped by ESC.. and these are a large percentage of total accidents.. But, again.. these accidents are rarely fatal...

#544 of 588 Studies vs. idle speculation by jeffyscott

Apr 10, 2007 (3:06 pm)

Study by IIHS, studies of ESC in Europe and Japan,
as well as a study by the U.S. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ALL have reported similar results.

#545 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [210delray] by user777

Apr 10, 2007 (3:16 pm)

Replying to: 210delray (Apr 10, 2007 1:07 pm)
i have problems with that report. there's not enough specificity to use the numbers in an objective and valid manner. about all i think you can safely say is they performed some analysis and SWAGged some numbers.
 
at one point the article admits that police reports indicate ESC was less effective in lower-severity crashes. now i wonder EXACTLY how they came to that conclusion.
 
what if for example there's a fatality crash and ESC wasn't even involved? what if it didn't even activate? how are they making this determination i'd like to know.
 
to know how and to the extent it is a differentiator, one would think one needs to analyze data captured before, during and after the crash showing that it activated (or not)..

#546 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [user777] by 210delray

Apr 10, 2007 (5:54 pm)

Replying to: user777 (Apr 10, 2007 3:16 pm)
This is my last message on this topic.
 
I think you are over-analyzing. The studies were done in the same way that side airbags, frontal airbags, and decades before that, seat belts (when used) were found to be effective. And in the same way that ABS was found to be ineffective.
 
Now consider this: the BUSH administration is requiring ESC. There is no way in Hades that this pro-business, Republican administration would foist such a regulatory mandate on a struggling car industry (domestic, at least) if there was the least bit of doubt in the validity of the studies. Also, instead of their usual carping and whining, the auto industry is embracing this regulation.
 
By contrast, look how long it took the industry to accept frontal airbags -- they kicked and screamed all the way, and it took a Supreme Court decision (and mandatory seat belt use laws without sufficient teeth) to finally pave the way for their widespread, and now universal, adoption.
 
Over and out.

#547 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [210delray] by jipster

Apr 10, 2007 (6:58 pm)

Replying to: 210delray (Apr 10, 2007 5:54 pm)
Well, from what I understand it costs less than $100 to install ESC, while frontal airbags are much more expensive. Bush gets to look like a humanitarian at very little cost to big business.

#548 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [210delray] by steve_ HOST

Apr 10, 2007 (7:14 pm)

Replying to: 210delray (Apr 10, 2007 5:54 pm)
There is no way in Hades that this pro-business
 
If it lowers the frequency of car wrecks, it'll be pro insurance business.

Messages Page 55 of 59

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement