Stability control: What do you think?

OK, folks: Threat, or menace?

Automotive News reports that suppliers of stability control systems got a
boost from an insurance industry study that concludes that the technology
could save 7,000 lives a year.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety compared fatality rates of
similar vehicles with and without the technology. It said the technology
cuts one-vehicle fatal crashes by 56 percent and all one-vehicle crashes by
41 percent.

Suppliers hope the data will encourage consumers to buy vehicles equipped
with stability control, which typically costs $500 or more.

More details at
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr102804.htm

Sounds like the same thing they once said about ABS. Look what they're saying
now...


http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_fact...antilock.htm#5


....might explain one reason why ABS is becoming more of a option these days
when once they were standard equipment.

Sounds like the same thing they once said about ABS. Look what they're saying
now...


http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_fact...antilock.htm#5


....might explain one reason why ABS is becoming more of a option these days
when once they were standard equipment.

> wrote

> Automotive News reports that suppliers of stability control systems got a
> boost from an insurance industry study that concludes that the technology
> could save 7,000 lives a year.

Maybe these kind of things help when the car is new, but I worry about this
kind of sophisticated technology after a few years in the big bad world.

> wrote

> Automotive News reports that suppliers of stability control systems got a
> boost from an insurance industry study that concludes that the technology
> could save 7,000 lives a year.

Maybe these kind of things help when the car is new, but I worry about this
kind of sophisticated technology after a few years in the big bad world.

In article >, says...
>OK, folks: Threat, or menace?

On good implementations, it is probably benign.

>Automotive News reports that suppliers of stability control systems got a
>boost from an insurance industry study that concludes that the technology
>could save 7,000 lives a year.

Must be the same guys who said ABS would also save thousands of lives,
it hasn't.

>The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety compared fatality rates of
>similar vehicles with and without the technology. It said the technology
>cuts one-vehicle fatal crashes by 56 percent and all one-vehicle crashes by
>41 percent.
>Suppliers hope the data will encourage consumers to buy vehicles equipped
>with stability control, which typically costs $500 or more.

I tend to not believe much that comes out of IIHS. Simply because they are
biased towards the needs of the insurance industry. They are a non-profit,
but fully funded by the for profit insurance industry.
---------------
Alex

In article >, says...
>OK, folks: Threat, or menace?

On good implementations, it is probably benign.

>Automotive News reports that suppliers of stability control systems got a
>boost from an insurance industry study that concludes that the technology
>could save 7,000 lives a year.

Must be the same guys who said ABS would also save thousands of lives,
it hasn't.

>The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety compared fatality rates of
>similar vehicles with and without the technology. It said the technology
>cuts one-vehicle fatal crashes by 56 percent and all one-vehicle crashes by
>41 percent.
>Suppliers hope the data will encourage consumers to buy vehicles equipped
>with stability control, which typically costs $500 or more.

I tend to not believe much that comes out of IIHS. Simply because they are
biased towards the needs of the insurance industry. They are a non-profit,
but fully funded by the for profit insurance industry.
---------------
Alex

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
| In article >, says...
| >OK, folks: Threat, or menace?
|
| On good implementations, it is probably benign.
|
| >Automotive News reports that suppliers of stability control systems
| >got a boost from an insurance industry study that concludes that
| >the technology could save 7,000 lives a year.
|
| Must be the same guys who said ABS would also save thousands of
| lives, it hasn't.

Correct...years of loss data proves it. But neither have DRLs...years of loss
data proves that too. But the IIHS "explains away" the data. Odd!

|
| >The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety compared fatality rates
| >of similar vehicles with and without the technology. It said the
| >technology cuts one-vehicle fatal crashes by 56 percent and all
| >one-vehicle crashes by 41 percent.
| >Suppliers hope the data will encourage consumers to buy vehicles
| >equipped with stability control, which typically costs $500 or more.

You bet they do!

| I tend to not believe much that comes out of IIHS. Simply because
| they are biased towards the needs of the insurance industry. They
| are a non-profit, but fully funded by the for profit insurance industry.

That would explain things quite nicely. You would think that they would want
to remain credible instead, wouldn't you?

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
| In article >, says...
| >OK, folks: Threat, or menace?
|
| On good implementations, it is probably benign.
|
| >Automotive News reports that suppliers of stability control systems
| >got a boost from an insurance industry study that concludes that
| >the technology could save 7,000 lives a year.
|
| Must be the same guys who said ABS would also save thousands of
| lives, it hasn't.

Correct...years of loss data proves it. But neither have DRLs...years of loss
data proves that too. But the IIHS "explains away" the data. Odd!

|
| >The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety compared fatality rates
| >of similar vehicles with and without the technology. It said the
| >technology cuts one-vehicle fatal crashes by 56 percent and all
| >one-vehicle crashes by 41 percent.
| >Suppliers hope the data will encourage consumers to buy vehicles
| >equipped with stability control, which typically costs $500 or more.

You bet they do!

| I tend to not believe much that comes out of IIHS. Simply because
| they are biased towards the needs of the insurance industry. They
| are a non-profit, but fully funded by the for profit insurance industry.

That would explain things quite nicely. You would think that they would want
to remain credible instead, wouldn't you?

>| In article >, says...
>| >OK, folks: Threat, or menace?

>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
.. .
>| On good implementations, it is probably benign.
>|
>| >Automotive News reports that suppliers of stability control systems
>| >got a boost from an insurance industry study that concludes that
>| >the technology could save 7,000 lives a year.
>|
>| Must be the same guys who said ABS would also save thousands of
>| lives, it hasn't.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, "James C. Reeves" > wrote:
>Correct...years of loss data proves it. But neither have DRLs...

DRL? What's that?
<snip>
--
John Bartley K7AAY http://celdata.cjb.net
This post quad-ROT-13 encrypted; reading it violates the DMCA.
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.