Last post on Sep 09, 2009 at 12:57 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#559 of 588 Re: not to pick on... [explorerx4]
Apr 11, 2007 (8:56 pm)
Ever fall asleep at the wheel, I have, and yes, lucky to be
alive applies. My MGB carried the scars from that one for
several years before I sold it. I finally found that
snacking while driving keeps me awake, what ever works ...
#560 of 588 Re: not to pick on... [explorerx4]
Apr 12, 2007 (5:30 am)
I suspect Mr. Waltrip was drunk when this "accident" occured. Most people who leave the scene of an accident and show up 6 hours later are. Oh, he may have fallen asleep... but it was probably as a result of to much booze.
#561 of 588 Re: not to pick on... [jipster]
Apr 12, 2007 (7:06 am)
I guess this is quite possible -- what better way to avoid a DWI rap than sleeping it off for 6 hours?
#562 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [steve_]
Apr 12, 2007 (9:38 am)
From the IIHS site:
important because ESC reduces the risk of
single-vehicle crashes by about 40 percent.
The effect is greater for fatal single-vehicle
crashes, which are reduced by more than
half. ESC lowers fatal multiple-vehicle crash
risk by 32 percent (see Status Report, June 13,
2006, and Jan. 3, 2005; on the web at iihs.org).
SUVs benefit most because their high centers
of gravity make them more likely than
cars to roll over. ESC decreases the risk of
fatal single-vehicle rollover crashes of SUVs
by 80 percent.
I'll expect the same arguements that were used against seatbelts and airbags citing individual experiences that fall outside of the average. I've had people tell me that they'd be safer if they were ejected from the car rather than belted in. I'm sure there are instances where that's true, but for 99% of crashes it's false.
#563 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [punkr77]
Apr 12, 2007 (11:07 am)
but how were these numbers derived? i for one am not saying it's a non-valuable technology nor am i saying it's not a safety differentiator...and i'm not saying i'd never own a vehicle equipted with ESC, i just don't see the basis for those numbers (yet), and i'm concerned with the additional complexity and cost to maintain, and the collision with current driver behaviors.
#564 of 588 Re: not to pick on... [corvette]
Apr 12, 2007 (3:19 pm)
esc has limits. many seem to think it is the best thing since sliced bread.
since he owns a toyota race team, i figure he was driving the latest and greatest model, although i can't tell from the picture.
the seatbelt probably saved him.
#565 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [user777]
Apr 13, 2007 (9:37 am)
... but how were these numbers derived? ... "
The references to the studies have been posted several
times and you still say to don't know how they were derived.
Go read the study introduction, not even the whole thing,
and you will be enlightened! The one I remember from
several I looked at in the past took two years of crash
data for a single model and then took two years of similar
data when the ESC was standard equip. In a world where 34M+
passenger vehicles are sold annually in the US and EU, that
does allow for statistically significant data pools. Since
ESC is the prime difference and since demographics would be
similar for the same model over time, pretty good study.
#566 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [starrow68]
Apr 13, 2007 (9:40 am)
You're exactly right, and the same methodology was used to prove the real-world effectiveness of both frontal and side airbags (and to show the lack of effectiveness of ABS).
#567 of 588 Re: I think thats wrong.. [starrow68]
Apr 13, 2007 (9:49 am)
I must have followed the wrong link.