Ford concerned with safety? [Archive] - SaabCentral Forums

: Ford concerned with safety?


Berkie
24th May 2009, 12:30 AM
Here in Australia if you want ESP on your Ford XR6 Utility (work vehicle) you can ONLY have it if you order their climate control pack as well.

So you want to pay extra for a safety feature but they are not going to let you get away with it without FORCING you to buy climate control.

How is climate control related to safety? No related at all of course

Situation normal. Ford more concerned with $$$ than making safety readily available in the public interest.

Unlike EU car makers e.g. Mercedes Benz, who, on their introduction of
ABS, immediately released the patents worlwide to all manufactures.
You got to hand it to them for being so philanthropic.
They probably did the same with ESP.

earthworm
24th May 2009, 12:36 AM
This is one of a hundred reasons why ,by 2012, there may be no more Ford, and GM...
But, at least for now, Ford is OK ( more or less) ,but GM is nearly bankrupt..
BTW, what is this ESP ?? Is it really necessary ??

zachc
24th May 2009, 12:41 AM
http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/models/2002/pr9.html

ESP!...

Berkie
24th May 2009, 01:10 AM
This is one of a hundred reasons why ,by 2012, there may be no more Ford, and GM...
But, at least for now, Ford is OK ( more or less) ,but GM is nearly bankrupt..
BTW, what is this ESP ?? Is it really necessary ??

It is claimed that it reduces smashes by 30%. Toyota claim 50%

Imagine if that reduction could be applied overnight. What an enormous saving in human suffering.

Yes, I think it is worth it

cjhutch
24th May 2009, 01:54 AM
Here in Australia if you want ESP on your Ford XR6 Utility (work vehicle) you can ONLY have it if you order their climate control pack as well.

So you want to pay extra for a safety feature but they are not going to let you get away with it without FORCING you to buy climate control.

How is climate control related to safety? No related at all of course

Situation normal. Ford more concerned with $$$ than making safety readily available in the public interest.

Unlike EU car makers e.g. Mercedes Benz, who, on their introduction of
ABS, immediately released the patents worlwide to all manufactures.
You got to hand it to them for being so philanthropic.
They probably did the same with ESP.

So what, with some car companies you have to buy the higher trim line in order to get things like airbags and ABS. It's all part of making money in the car business. I've always thought manufacturers could lower their costs and make more money by just making two trim lines instead of mixing so many options and packages. Make one line for those who want to be frugal and another for those who want the full package.

Berkie
24th May 2009, 03:27 AM
So what, with some car companies you have to buy the higher trim line in order to get things like airbags and ABS. It's all part of making money in the car business. I've always thought manufacturers could lower their costs and make more money by just making two trim lines instead of mixing so many options and packages. Make one line for those who want to be frugal and another for those who want the full package.

Well there you are. Forcing you to buy other packages before allowing you to buy the safety item.

OK let them do that on luxury items but not on safety

If it is going to save lives, any safety item should be mandatory.

boon94
24th May 2009, 08:48 AM
Probably just a way for them to advertise their trucks start at a lower cost than the competitions, and i bet less than 10% of the models produced come without the package that includes ABS, cause obviously everyone will want it except for the people beating on it on farms and 100% off road & what not.

mikeucr
24th May 2009, 10:52 AM
this is wierd because climate control has nothing to do with ESP...I could see if you didn't buy ABS you wouldn't get the ESP...

Route 17
24th May 2009, 05:18 PM
Press release:

FORD TO MAKE ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL STANDARD ON ALL CARS AND TRUCKS BY END OF 2009

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=24259

Berkie
24th May 2009, 05:39 PM
this is wierd because climate control has nothing to do with ESP...I could see if you didn't buy ABS you wouldn't get the ESP...

Isn't ABS standard on all cars in US?

It has been here for some years, by law.

WhiteT5
24th May 2009, 05:46 PM
Isn't ABS standard on all cars in US?

It has been here for some years, by law.
Nope. On most low end and even some mid-range cars, ABS is optional.

Berkie
24th May 2009, 05:52 PM
Nope. On most low end and even some mid-range cars, ABS is optional.

Here you even HAVE to wear a seatbelt or cop a fine!

WhiteT5
24th May 2009, 06:08 PM
Here you even HAVE to wear a seatbelt or cop a fine!
Seatbelts are required here too. I am not in favor of such laws though. If one is dumb enough to not wear a seatbelt by their own will, maybe it is in society's best interest to, perhaps, have that person permanently "go away" if you know what I mean.

Seatbelts should be required for children though. They don't necessarily know any better. Neither do some parents apparently, based on my all too common observation of kids running amok in the back seats of cars.

900t
24th May 2009, 09:25 PM
Isn't ABS standard on all cars in US?

It has been here for some years, by law.

It isn't, GM actually led the way in the US, in 1992 and onwards all GM cars came with ABS, even 7000$ Cavaliers when usually ABS was only found on 30 000$ Saabs and MB's. Partly because GM developed a novel inexpensive electronic ABS system

But around 2004 GM stopped doing that... now of course with time it is coming back...

Soon if not already it is mandatory in the US to have ESP system, or perhaps only on light trucks.

The reason Ford is tying the options like that, is because generally the people taking ESP would also take the climate control... it allows Ford to save some $$$ by only producing two variants instead of four variants... considering the safety benefit of ESP that does exist statistically speaking (apparently) but that it is generally a non-issue I don't see the problem in Ford's business practice in this case.

In the US and Canada they will all give you tickets if you don't wear the seatbelt. Except in the glorious state of New Hampshire, where people over 16 can do as they want. What a wonderful place...

wrestrepo
24th May 2009, 11:01 PM
If one is dumb enough to not wear a seatbelt by their own will, maybe it is in society's best interest to, perhaps, have that person permanently "go away" if you know what I mean.

the problem is that crashing without a seat belt does not mean that you will die, it does mean that you are more likely to have more severe injuries that if you were not wearing one. Those people, have to be rescued by ambulance, brought to a hospital, and if the injuries are severe enough get subsidies from the government, that we all pay.....so, the problem does not go away...now, if the cops were putting bullets in their head, instead of giving them tickets, then the problem would go away....

It isn't, GM actually led the way in the US, in 1992 and onwards all GM cars came with ABS, even 7000$ Cavaliers when usually ABS was only found on 30 000$ Saabs and MB's. Partly because GM developed a novel inexpensive electronic ABS system

But around 2004 GM stopped doing that... now of course with time it is coming back...

Soon if not already it is mandatory in the US to have ESP system, or perhaps only on light trucks.

The reason Ford is tying the options like that, is because generally the people taking ESP would also take the climate control... it allows Ford to save some $$$ by only producing two variants instead of four variants... considering the safety benefit of ESP that does exist statistically speaking (apparently) but that it is generally a non-issue I don't see the problem in Ford's business practice in this case.

In the US and Canada they will all give you tickets if you don't wear the seatbelt. Except in the glorious state of New Hampshire, where people over 16 can do as they want. What a wonderful place...

I remember when ABS became popular around that time...I also remember that GM cars had lots of brake issues related to the ABS, perhaps that was the reason they stop putting it in every car....

ESP became mandatory for SUVs I believe.....the rollover thing...

You ask how is ESP related to climate control? well, the same way that leather is related to navigation, or Xenon lights to automatic windshield wipers, or rear view cameras to automatic transmissions, because...Cars are not made A la Carte (most vehicles anyways), especially a utility truck...

If you use the safety argument, you could use it for most "luxury" things nowadays, imagine if all cars had Xenons, or laser guided cruise control, or automatic windshield wipers....wouldn't this world be safer?;)

900t
24th May 2009, 11:43 PM
Actually utility trucks are probably the last "a la carte" setups

I remember the engineers at Ford were saying the 2004-2008 F-150 had something like 2.5 billion possible configurations :lol:

wrestrepo
24th May 2009, 11:44 PM
Actually utility trucks are probably the last "a la carte" setups

I remember the engineers at Ford were saying the 2004-2008 F-150 had something like 2.5 billion possible configurations :lol:
Not this one.........

SaabKen
25th May 2009, 12:36 AM
Actually utility trucks are probably the last "a la carte" setups

I remember the engineers at Ford were saying the 2004-2008 F-150 had something like 2.5 billion possible configurations :lol:

So if I were tryin' to choose an F-150 configuration I'd be in the showroom with the salesman ALL DAY ?!? Waitaminit, I may be there for the rest of my life and still not finish with the final trim I want ........

Carl Sagan probably would have appreciated the F-150's "billions and billions of different trim and options combinations and permutation" :lol:

davestlouis
25th May 2009, 11:00 AM
They're trying to repeal the motorcycle helmet law in Missouri, except in Interstate highways, so organ donors can look cool just before the crash. I don't ride, so forgive my cynicism. I truly don;t understand why one would travel on a public street, surrounded by SUVs and whatnot, without protective gear.

wrestrepo
25th May 2009, 01:35 PM
They're trying to repeal the motorcycle helmet law in Missouri, except in Interstate highways, so organ donors can look cool just before the crash. I don't ride, so forgive my cynicism. I truly don;t understand why one would travel on a public street, surrounded by SUVs and whatnot, without protective gear.
They don't have helmet laws in CT....realistically speaking, how much does a helmet protect you on a motorcycle crash?

davestlouis
25th May 2009, 01:46 PM
I dunno how much a helmet really helps, I suspect leather clothing would help a bunch too. I have enough trouble with cars getting hit, I surely don't need to get hit on a motorcycle.

Berkie
25th May 2009, 01:48 PM
They don't have helmet laws in CT....realistically speaking, how much does a helmet protect you on a motorcycle crash?

Admittedly a helmet can't protect your limbs or organs, but they are much easier to repair than a brain.

Berkie
25th May 2009, 01:52 PM
They're trying to repeal the motorcycle helmet law in Missouri, except in Interstate highways, so organ donors can look cool just before the crash. I don't ride, so forgive my cynicism. I truly don;t understand why one would travel on a public street, surrounded by SUVs and whatnot, without protective gear.

Here it is law that even on a pushbike you must wear a helmet at all times.:nono;

wrestrepo
25th May 2009, 03:55 PM
I dunno how much a helmet really helps, I suspect leather clothing would help a bunch too. I have enough trouble with cars getting hit, I surely don't need to get hit on a motorcycle.
Leather helps you to avoid road rash, not to be "protected" from a hit....

escalator guru
25th May 2009, 05:58 PM
People survived driving for many many years before garbage like ABS and ESP and TCS and all that malarkey came along. If someone wants to pay for the luxury of a car that thinks it's a better driver than they are, then they should be able to. There is no substitute for safe driving and systems like this teach you to be lazy and less accountable for your own driving-- there's nothing that TCS does that a skilled driver can't do on their own. It's not a safety feature, it's a luxury.

The more we rely on these things, the less likely we are to be able to drive under adverse conditions when these systems inevitably fail. How safe is that?


And on the subject of seat belts and motorcycle helmets, my state does not require seat belt use and our seat belt use rate is actually HIGHER than that of neighboring states. Also doesn't require motorcycle helmets.

900t
25th May 2009, 06:08 PM
They don't have helmet laws in CT....realistically speaking, how much does a helmet protect you on a motorcycle crash?

It is extremely useful for cranial injuries. But what I don't get is the impetus to make laws for things like this.

It is like people expect that you can write a law and boom things are totally different. But like with seatbelts, anyone with a brain is wearing the belt or the helmet, regardless of the law. And the idiots who are not wearing the belt or helmet, well they are doing so anyway regardless. So what the hell?!

fiveiron9688
26th May 2009, 01:57 AM
People survived driving for many many years before garbage like ABS and ESP and TCS and all that malarkey came along. If someone wants to pay for the luxury of a car that thinks it's a better driver than they are, then they should be able to. There is no substitute for safe driving and systems like this teach you to be lazy and less accountable for your own driving-- there's nothing that TCS does that a skilled driver can't do on their own. It's not a safety feature, it's a luxury.

The more we rely on these things, the less likely we are to be able to drive under adverse conditions when these systems inevitably fail. How safe is that?

Excellent point. Although I do not really mind these amenities (as long as I can turn them off), they are all really just to make driving "easier" I guess. We can just mash the gas or mash the brake, and the car will pick up the slack for us. But the car cannot correct all human errors by any means, which is where many unaware drivers run into problems:o

SaabKen
26th May 2009, 02:18 AM
It is extremely useful for cranial injuries. But what I don't get is the impetus to make laws for things like this.

It is like people expect that you can write a law and boom things are totally different. But like with seatbelts, anyone with a brain is wearing the belt or the helmet, regardless of the law. And the idiots who are not wearing the belt or helmet, well they are doing so anyway regardless. So what the hell?!

Excellent point. Although I do not really mind these amenities (as long as I can turn them off), they are all really just to make driving "easier" I guess. We can just mash the gas or mash the brake, and the car will pick up the slack for us. But the car cannot correct all human errors by any means, which is where many unaware drivers run into problems:o

I have a problem with the new "fangled" lane-departure warning systems and automatic collision-avoidance systems. Sure, accidents can and will always happen to the best of us (us highly-skilled and suave Saab drivers, that is :cool: ).

But I'm sorry, if ya can't be bothered to turn your neck and shoulder check before changing lanes, or regularly pay attention to traffic ahead and leave a safe and sufficient distance to the next car, I'm sorry, you should NOT be out there with a valid license driving :roll:

fiveiron9688
26th May 2009, 02:27 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2008/12/volvo-goes-for.html

Now we don't even need to push the brakes...:o

Jubilee Vert
26th May 2009, 04:59 AM
I have a problem with the new "fangled" lane-departure warning systems and automatic collision-avoidance systems. Sure, accidents can and will always happen to the best of us (us highly-skilled and suave Saab drivers, that is :cool: ).

But I'm sorry, if ya can't be bothered to turn your neck and shoulder check before changing lanes, or regularly pay attention to traffic ahead and leave a safe and sufficient distance to the next car, I'm sorry, you should NOT be out there with a valid license driving :roll:

I had an experience driving a Cadillac STS with the collision warning system. It was an icy road and someone on the highway decided it would be a great thing to create a pile up of vehicles. I noticed this early and began evasive manuevers. I was obviously going to be rather close to people as I headed for my exit from the mess, but I knew I would not hit anyone. As I was in the midst of the evasive action the collision detection alarm went off. There was no application of brakes, no reduction in throttle, nothing else happened other then a little warning chime with some sort of symbol displayed on the heads up display system. There I was thinking to myself, well, that is a useless system if I ever saw one. The time to act was a second ago, not when the alarm went off. When the alarm went off it was far too late. If you were relying solely on said alarm, then by the time you figured out what it was telling you; you would be a part of the accident it was trying to warn you about.

This technology is good though and I like ESP even though I consider myself a competent driver. ESP rarely is used on my car but when it did come on, I was very thankful it was there. You can't be the best driver ever known to the planet 100% of the time so it is nice to have a plan B. The problem is that ESP should be plan B and most people assume it to be plan A.

Now on Ford bundling the option with an HVAC system upgrade, that is something that is common practice. Even in the world of SAAB not all options are Ala Carte though there is certainly more flexibility with SAAB then other manufacturers. Bundling options reduces the amount of possible combinations on the production line which reduces cost/complexity. It would be a very difficult thing just to manage inventory of parts to build 1,000,000 possible combinations of one car. Some of the bundling may not make sense from a product perspective, but from a build efficiency perspective it may make sense.

TooMany2cvs
26th May 2009, 08:11 AM
People survived driving for many many years before garbage like ABS and ESP and TCS and all that malarkey came along. If someone wants to pay for the luxury of a car that thinks it's a better driver than they are, then they should be able to. There is no substitute for safe driving and systems like this teach you to be lazy and less accountable for your own driving-- there's nothing that TCS does that a skilled driver can't do on their own. It's not a safety feature, it's a luxury.

The more we rely on these things, the less likely we are to be able to drive under adverse conditions when these systems inevitably fail. How safe is that?

<applause>

ABS, ESP, TC et al don't do anything UNLESS and until the driver's already screwed it up. I'd suggest that "skilled driver" _should_ be an unnecessary tautology, though - that's what driving tests are for, to ensure that drivers have the skills to drive properly.

We've got some fun'n'games in the news today about a change to the motorbike test that requires a small swerve-and-brake round some cones at 30mph. In the few weeks since it was brought in, some people have fallen off - including one who broke her collarbone and is now suing the Driving Standards Agency (the people who set the test). 'scuse me? If you can't do a small swerve without falling off, it seems to be fairly safe to suggest that you were nowhere near ready to be let loose...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8067672.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8067212.stm

As I was in the midst of the evasive action the collision detection alarm went off. There was no application of brakes, no reduction in throttle, nothing else happened other then a little warning chime with some sort of symbol displayed on the heads up display system. There I was thinking to myself, well, that is a useless system if I ever saw one. The time to act was a second ago, not when the alarm went off. When the alarm went off it was far too late. If you were relying solely on said alarm, then by the time you figured out what it was telling you; you would be a part of the accident it was trying to warn you about.

Worse than that, though, surely? You're driving along, and something starts to happen in front. Just when you most need your attention, there's a noise and a light distracting you...?

walmark
26th May 2009, 02:27 PM
People survived driving for many many years before garbage like ABS and ESP and TCS and all that malarkey came along. If someone wants to pay for the luxury of a car that thinks it's a better driver than they are, then they should be able to. There is no substitute for safe driving and systems like this teach you to be lazy and less accountable for your own driving-- there's nothing that TCS does that a skilled driver can't do on their own. It's not a safety feature, it's a luxury.

I respectfully disagree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tSy5tHtT1g
This clearly shows how these systems, when use PROPERLY, provide a significant advantage to the driver in adverse conditions.

The more we rely on these things, the less likely we are to be able to drive under adverse conditions when these systems inevitably fail. How safe is that?These systems, just as any modern technology, are meant to improve our safety and comfort while driving, but only when used properly. Only small fraction of people complain about their existence, but less and less with time. Some people ale still bothered about introducing synchros to manual gearboxes - that means not everyone driving them has to know how to double-clutch (how NOT spartan). How about modern headlights (even halogen, not just HID)? Isn't it better that the reflectors are much better, and bulbs provide safe amounts of illumination? Should we still be able to drive at night with half-dimmed tungsten bulbs that almost disappear when wipers are turned on (btw, that's how I began my driving career ;))?

That said, the problem with ABS is not the system itself, but rather the way it is advertised and marketed - they got it all wrong!

The ABS IS:
- an Anti-Lock Braking System - it prevents wheels from locking up during emergency/hard braking, allowing the driver to remain in control and perform evasive manuvers while braking. That's it, that's all it does.

ABS IS NOT:
- magic
- guarantee you can't crash, so you don't have to pay attention anymore
- ABS DOES NOT make your brakes better/more efficient! It has been shown that in slippery conditions the braking distance with ABS is LONGER than without! The difference is that you stay in control and the wheels don't lock up

Here is where I learned about poor ABS marketing:
http://www.carbibles.com/brake_bible.html

Scroll down to the section about ABS. I found it a great read.

One more thing that I found on that site, and I agree with completely is that the only device that can be cheaply implemented into every car and would increase driving safety SIGNIFICANTLY is a SHARP SPIKE in the middle of the steering wheel, pointed directly at the driver (in EVERY car).
This would exponentially increase the amount of attention people pay while driving, and therefore drastically reduce the number of accidents. Careless drivers are the main, most common cause of all accidents!

toplessFC3Sman
26th May 2009, 02:58 PM
... There is no substitute for safe driving and systems like this teach you to be lazy and less accountable for your own driving-- there's nothing that TCS does that a skilled driver can't do on their own...

I agree with the sentiment of what you wrote, especially that the driver is who needs to be accountable, but traction control systems can do much more than you can on your own. You can't control the braking force on each wheel to maintain stability thru a swerve, you can only control the overall braking force, which in most situations will not offer the optimal braking at each wheel for helping the car turn or counteracting oversteer. True, you shouldnt be getting into these situations unless you know what you're doing, but cars are increasingly seen as a right, not a responsibility.

TooMany2cvs
26th May 2009, 03:02 PM
I respectfully disagree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tSy5tHtT1g
This clearly shows how these systems, when use PROPERLY, provide a significant advantage to the driver in adverse conditions.

Driving at 70mph across a field of sheet ice? Trying to climb a hill of sheet ice? Hardly conditions that the average driver will EVER come across.

These systems, just as any modern technology, are meant to improve our safety and comfort while driving, but only when used properly. Only small fraction of people complain about their existence, but less and less with time. Some people ale still bothered about introducing synchros to manual gearboxes - that means not everyone driving them has to know how to double-clutch (how NOT spartan). How about modern headlights (even halogen, not just HID)? Isn't it better that the reflectors are much better, and bulbs provide safe amounts of illumination? Should we still be able to drive at night with half-dimmed tungsten bulbs that almost disappear when wipers are turned on (btw, that's how I began my driving career ;))?

You miss the point somewhat. Those are all features that benefit normal drivers in normal conditions all of the time. ABS, TC, ESP only ever do anything at all once the driver has gone outside the normal limits of grip. And that's not somewhere that you should EVER get near in road conditions driving responsibly.

Even then, they encourage invincibility - "They'll stop me from crashing". Great. Until you exceed the level of grip by such a margin that not even the alphabet soup can save you from. Then you're going to have a VERY big crash, with no warning whatsoever - because you've got used to letting the electronics sort your incompetence out.

TooMany2cvs
26th May 2009, 03:03 PM
but cars are increasingly seen as a right, not a responsibility.

Perhaps it's that attitude which ought to be challenged?

WhiteT5
26th May 2009, 04:23 PM
One more thing that I found on that site, and I agree with completely is that the only device that can be cheaply implemented into every car and would increase driving safety SIGNIFICANTLY is a SHARP SPIKE in the middle of the steering wheel, pointed directly at the driver (in EVERY car).
This would exponentially increase the amount of attention people pay while driving, and therefore drastically reduce the number of accidents.
This is mentioned in a book called "The Armchair Economist". It is also noted that a noteworthy increase in accident rates was seen after the widespread requirement of seatbelts in cars.

I'm not so sure such an argument applies when it comes to things such as ESP or ABS though. Their existence is rather transparent to most drivers until they are actually needed. Seatbelts, while not always consciously considered, go through the minds of everyone who uses them on a regular basis, every time they drive. When the ABS system stops someone from rear ending another driver who had to make a panic stop, most people don't think to themselves, "Whew! Good thing for ABS!" I'd wager that a considerable portion of drivers don't know what ABS is/what it does, or whether or not their car has it. The same applies for ESP. I know such a thing sounds crazy to the car enthusiasts on this board, but I can assure you that there are those that struggle with the concept that a car's oil must be regularly changed. You can't expect that group to consider variables such as ABS or ESP.

Berkie
26th May 2009, 08:01 PM
Perhaps it's that attitude which ought to be challenged?


I agree!

900t
26th May 2009, 09:09 PM
This is mentioned in a book called "The Armchair Economist". It is also noted that a noteworthy increase in accident rates was seen after the widespread requirement of seatbelts in cars.


Is this really true? At least as a sustained phenomenon? Because generally speaking the death rate per billion passenger-km has been on a steady decline since this statistic was first calculated in the 1920's, year after year.

Spikes in the steering wheel? This is just ridiculous, get real... nobody is going around "ah I think I'll crash today, splendid!"

Lane departure, blind spot etc warning systems aren't so bad IMO. There are a goodly number of drivers that at least on some occasions aren't paying attention to these things and that does have the potential to save someone's ***...

ABS does offer a particularly good advantage of firstly "thoughtless" panic braking, just stomp on the pedal and that is it. Without ABS you need to do threshold braking (letting a wheel lock then letting off a bit) or as high school said, "pump" the brakes (screech nothing screech nothing) which requires less skill. But the ABS can modulate every wheel individually (assuming a 4-channel system) and maintain it precisely at the threshold, while adapting constantly to the differing conditions and permitting directional control. It is better than a driver can be since he can only modulate 4 brakes at once. Net positive...

wrestrepo
26th May 2009, 10:17 PM
People survived driving for many many years before garbage like ABS and ESP and TCS and all that malarkey came along. There is no substitute for safe driving and systems like this teach you to be lazy and less accountable for your own driving-- there's nothing that TCS does that a skilled driver can't do on their own. It's not a safety feature, it's a luxury.

The more we rely on these things, the less likely we are to be able to drive under adverse conditions when these systems inevitably fail. How safe is that?


I would not call garbage life saving equipment, because that's what those are. Lazy, less accountable? or rather forgiving? You must be a heck of a driver if you never make mistakes.....
TCS is actually much better, and can do much more than a skilled driver....that's not an opinion, that's a fact....
If any of the systems fail, you go about driving like you would have if you didn't have the system, and then fix it....failure of the systems does NOT put you in any more danger that you would be if they were not on....right?

wrestrepo
26th May 2009, 10:21 PM
This is mentioned in a book called "The Armchair Economist". It is also noted that a noteworthy increase in accident rates was seen after the widespread requirement of seatbelts in cars.

That was an unintended consequence of the seat belts...they make you feel safer and you get a little more reckless......simple....
Think about condoms, you would not stick your thing bareback in some girl that you think has high mileage, BUT if you had a rubber you are more likely to take that chance.....unintended consequence, you are more likely to engage into risky behavior....but nobody questions the benefits of using them

Snowdude
26th May 2009, 10:36 PM
ford europe/aussie will not go bankrupt there profits are up.


"even 7000$ Cavaliers when usually ABS"

yeah just hope you dont get t-boned, instant death. Those cavilers are what started them testing all cars side impact.

SaabKen
26th May 2009, 10:42 PM
"even 7000$ Cavaliers when usually ABS"

yeah just hope you dont get t-boned, instant death. Those cavilers are what started them testing all cars side impact.

Cavaliers ..... GM's crash testing base case "you're SOL if you get broadsided in this" scenario ..... :o

Snowdude
26th May 2009, 10:43 PM
And, tthhhaattsss why there going bankrupt.

900t
26th May 2009, 11:09 PM
ford europe/aussie will not go bankrupt there profits are up.


"even 7000$ Cavaliers when usually ABS"

yeah just hope you dont get t-boned, instant death. Those cavilers are what started them testing all cars side impact.

side impact regulations started in the early 1970's, Cavalier introduced... 1982:lol: