US Federal Government to Require Stability Control

[TheCracker]

Now, the reply form any congressman:

I am sorry, but to add any money with our already stretched budget for the infrastructure and instruction for proper driver's training would be too much, given the war in Iraq and Katrina, and would not help us get re-elected so we can continue to line our fat wallets with taxpayer dollars and look like we're good people.

Here, have a sucker and a "Vote For Me" pin.

In other words, "We acknowledge that far too many citizens are been killed on our roads through what boils down to bad education and know that this looks bad on us, but we can't afford/be arsed to do anything about it. What we can do is enforce the manufactures to come up with ways of stopping Mr & Mrs Stupid from wiping themselves out whilst continuing to be stupid (giving themselves futher oppotunities to kill themselves in the future). This way if road deaths continue to grow, then we can blame the manufactures. It's a win win situation" 👍

 

[Jim Prower]

In other words, "We acknowledge that far too many citizens are been killed on our roads through what boils down to bad education and know that this looks bad on us, but we can't afford/be arsed to do anything about it. What we can do is enforce the manufactures to come up with ways of stopping Mr & Mrs Stupid from wiping themselves out whilst continuing to be stupid (giving themselves futher oppotunities to kill themselves in the future). This way if road deaths continue to grow, then we can blame the manufactures. It's a win win situation" 👍

EXACTLY.

More than anything, it doesn't make them look any better, and it doesn't keep them in office, so they don't give a crap. Such a program would meet with resistance from current drivers anyway, who don't want to put the effort forth to learn to drive, which is why this little "Band-aid" is so popular.

A useless peice of legislation, whose sole purpose is to keep a man in office.

My advice? Vote against anyone who votes FOR this.

 

[Pupik]

In other words, "We acknowledge that far too many citizens are been killed on our roads through what boils down to bad education and know that this looks bad on us, but we can't afford/be arsed to do anything about it. What we can do is enforce the manufactures to come up with ways of stopping Mr & Mrs Stupid from wiping themselves out whilst continuing to be stupid (giving themselves futher oppotunities to kill themselves in the future). This way if road deaths continue to grow, then we can blame the manufactures. It's a win win situation" 👍

Never mind that automobiles kill more people in the US than anthing else in the world. Likely less than 1% can be traced to a faulty autmobile, unless it was poorly maintained.

People die in accidents because they're:

• Driving too fast for conditions (traction control can't stop entry speed, anyhow).
• Drunk or intoxicated (and idiots still do it).
• Fall asleep at the wheel, or while fatigued.
• Concentrating too much on non-driving-related activities (cellphones, DVD players, etc.).

Sadly, little progress has been made in reducing those types of fatalities.

 

[Omnis]

Unfortunately, we don't live in Liberteria; many laws are usually enforced without the clause of personal responsibility.

Damn, I was looking forward to peeling out with the Virginia Plan in my windsheild.

 

[Danoff]

What this type of legislation says is that it is illegal to manufacture a new car and sell it without ASM- or - it is illegal to purchase a new car without ASM. If you do, you go to jail.

Do you think it's right to put people in jail who make cars without ASM? Or purchase them? Cars aren't always driven on public roads.

The auto industry is already manufacturing cars with ASM for people who want it, what good does this legislation do other than force it on people who don't think it's worth it or don't want it in the first place?

The hardest hit by legislation like this is the poorest among us. The entry price for the automobile has been increasing due to increased requirements from lawmakers for a long time. This one little extra, combined with all of the other extras, increases the cost of car ownership and makes it more difficult for poor people to get to work in the long run.

👎

 

[Slicks]

When (Or should I say 'If') this goes into legislation, I wonder how this will effect Canadian vehicles. Will we get the same systems, or will they still remain as-is up here in the land of the Ice and Snow?

 

[YSSMAN]

...Well given that we have a Republican-controled congress that is generally "pro business" in most situations, it is all going to depend greatly on how well the positioning of people who are for the systems becomming standard are. I have no idea if the legislation itself has even been introduced to the House or the Senate yet, or what the language of it includes.

Chances are, it could pass... We will see... With the American automakers begining to offer it on more models, maybe they should be taking this oppertunity to strap it on every model to say "Hey, look we beat Europe and Japan!" Good press is always that, good press... And certainly Ford, GM, and DCX could use it right about now...

 

[luftrofl]

...Well given that we have a Republican-controled congress that is generally "pro business" in most situations, it is all going to depend greatly on how well the positioning of people who are for the systems becomming standard are. I have no idea if the legislation itself has even been introduced to the House or the Senate yet, or what the language of it includes.

Chances are, it could pass... We will see... With the American automakers begining to offer it on more models, maybe they should be taking this oppertunity to strap it on every model to say "Hey, look we beat Europe and Japan!" Good press is always that, good press... And certainly Ford, GM, and DCX could use it right about now...

Actually, I think if this does pass, then it will have been from the "family values" side of American politics.

Basically, it's the side that always pushes for overly-idealistic ideas that are always meant to do good, but are also always very stupid, misinformed, and do nothing to fix the actual problem.

Stability control might solve a few problems, but more problems would be solved if we just made drivers smarter or remove the dumb ones(this would take out quite a lot, actually).

Just today some idiot decided it would be a good idea to quickly stick the nose of his car out of a driveway that was blind to traffic due to parked cars onto a busy street. At least he had the forethought to stop and stare at me like an idiot before realizing that NO, I could not pass his dumb ass while the nose of his car was blocking my lane and then he finally moved!
Smart driving, not stability control, allowed me to recognize this complete moron as a hazard, and slow down.

SF Bay Area drivers(specifically Oakland)- You gotta love 'em.

Another thing I'm worried about is the possibility of over-confidence due to having stability control. I am concerned about this because some of the worst drivers I have seen are those driving cars that seem safe(meaning big SUVs- big is safe right?, Volvos-nothin' against the actual cars, just the drivers , Subarus & Audi Quattros- AWD means you can't crash, right?)

 

[1X83Z]

I strongly support this idea. Everyone here takes a position that's laughable. When are you guys going to understand that not everyone is a performance driver, like you all think you are?

 

[Jedi2016]

I strongly support this idea. Everyone here takes a position that's laughable. When are you guys going to understand that not everyone is a performance driver, like you all think you are?

That's all well and good for the average soccer mom. But if I ever get my car squirrelly, and I go to get it back in line, and then the car starts doing things on it's own that I'm not telling it to...

I just don't like the idea of giving over control of my car to a machine. What happens if the stability control gets in my way of bringing the car back into line, and makes things worse? No matter what you may think, a computer will never be able to make proper decisions in a crunch situation.

This technology will indeed save the lives of the idiots with the cellphones and the lattes. For anyone that actually knows what they're doing behind the wheel, it can only get in the way.

I'm not against the technology itself, but I think it needs to have an off switch.

I'm still waiting for them to ban manual transmission. There's already been people who have tried.

 

[southern347]

It doesn't matter if someone considers themself a performance driver or not, this is stupid legislation that is just a "band-aid", as someone previously mentioned. What people don't understand is that most accidents are not truly "accidents"; meaning unavoidable. Most occur because the driver was not practicing safe driving to begin with. See Pupiks post #33. He lists just 4 of many situations that would not be rectified AT ALL with stability control. Until the car will completely drive itself, there is NO substitute for proper driving.


Edit: to Jedi2016, I would have to disagree with you, stability control would not save the lives of idiots on cellphones and drinking coffee. It is not a collision avoidance system. The system may know if the car is sliding, or out of shape, but knows nothing about the row of stopped cars that the idiot is about to rear end.

 

[Wolfe]

I strongly support this idea. Everyone here takes a position that's laughable. When are you guys going to understand that not everyone is a performance driver, like you all think you are?

When are you going to understand that stability control won't eliminate accidents, but will give uneducated drivers a sense of overinflated security and interfere with an experienced driver's ability to control the car in an emergency situation?

Your blind support of a safety technology for the sole reason that the average driver feels safer with it is laughable.

 

[1X83Z]

When are you going to understand that stability control won't eliminate accidents, but will give uneducated drivers a sense of overinflated security and interfere with an experienced driver's ability to control the car in an emergency situation?

How won't it eliminate accidents?

That's all well and good for the average soccer mom. But if I ever get my car squirrelly, and I go to get it back in line, and then the car starts doing things on it's own that I'm not telling it to...

Well then consider that "the average soccer mom" is about 90% of the driving population. You're among the two percent who considers yourself a driving enthusiast. Don't worry - I am too - but you guys have to gain a bit of perspective, and put yourself in the shoes of the other 90% on stuff like this.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm with M5Power on this one. We need to protect the average citizens and forget about what the minority wants, as this is indeed a country of majority rule.

...But even then, we are getting our panties in a knot despite the fact that the legislation has yet to be introduced to Congress (both levels) here in the US. I've been attempting to find the bill on the two websites, and I haven't had any luck.

You can rest assured that most of the folks in Detroit are smart enough to figure out that these should have an on/off switch. They have been pretty good about that thus far, and even on some models where it can't be switched off, the threshold for which the systems activate leave for plenty of fun for most drivers.

 

[Jay]

I don't mind the stability control aslong as there is a genuine off switch, even if there isnt im sure aftermarket electronics or a 'trick' will shut it off on demand.

Holden recently blamed much of the extra weight of the new VE due to the stability control, I haven't had a chance to check out the mechanical side of the VE stability control yet but 150kg's (330lb's) is excessive.

 

[YSSMAN]

A small computer weighs that much on a VE Commodore? Hmmm...

Unless I'm oversimplifying my understanding of most of these systems, I belive it consists of a small box no larger than that of a shoebox filled with other gizmos that collect axis measurements to correct a vehicle when it gets outside the threshold of what is considered "good." After the computer makes a few "clicks" by tapping the breaks via the ABS controler and effectively cutting the throttle via the mostly drive-by-wire technology today, the car is theoretically placed back into control.

...Call me crazy, but I don't think a computer and some extra wires weighs in at 300 lbs. I'd belive them, maybe, if they said 100 lbs or less...

 

[Jay]

...Call me crazy, but I don't think a computer and some extra wires weighs in at 300 lbs. I'd belive them, maybe, if they said 100 lbs or less...

Exactly, thats why I am interested in seeing first hand the stability control system, because I don't believe it would increase weight by that sort of factor considering the previous VZ II already had ABS and drive by wire.

Just a excuse for the extra weight if you ask me.

 

[luftrofl]

How won't it eliminate accidents?



Well then consider that "the average soccer mom" is about 90% of the driving population. You're among the two percent who considers yourself a driving enthusiast. Don't worry - I am too - but you guys have to gain a bit of perspective, and put yourself in the shoes of the other 90% on stuff like this.

It won't eliminate(in this case, I'm assuming this means "eliminate every accident") accidents because not all accidents are due to the driver losing control of the vehicle or during circumstances that the stability control would have saved the accident.
While I agree with that statement, I do think that's a bit too much of a "Well, DUH!" fact.

I think that the "average soccer mom" is actually something that should be eliminated- in that it should be "average soccer mom- who knows at least a little bit about cars."
My main beef is that people think cars are safe. People should know that cars are, potentially, quite dangerous but can be driven safely.

 

[Wolfe]

It won't eliminate(in this case, I'm assuming this means "eliminate every accident") accidents because not all accidents are due to the driver losing control of the vehicle or during circumstances that the stability control would have saved the accident.

Correct.

While I agree with that statement, I do think that's a bit too much of a "Well, DUH!" fact.

You're giving our government too much credit. They see this as a cure-all solution for a large portion of automobile accidents.

My main beef is that people think cars are safe.

Give them a "security blanket" in the form of stability control and they'll feel even safer.

 

[1X83Z]

It won't eliminate(in this case, I'm assuming this means "eliminate every accident") accidents because not all accidents are due to the driver losing control of the vehicle or during circumstances that the stability control would have saved the accident.

This statement is laughable. Of course not all accidents are due to the driver losing control of the vehicle during such circumstances - but MANY ARE, and stability control would go a long way in reducing the number of accidents with circumstances in which stability control would help.

I think that the "average soccer mom" is actually something that should be eliminated- in that it should be "average soccer mom- who knows at least a little bit about cars."

Brilliant in theory, but truly comical if you considered putting it into practice. You want 200 million Americans to go back to driver training? Give me a BREAK.

You guys don't think like economists, you don't think like government, and you don't think like average citizens - you think like car enthusiasts, and you can't comprehend why that can't be applied to the population as a whole.

 

[Race Idiot]

Oh man so will they start fitting elises with traction control then.

Welp to be honest i'm not realy suprised about this.

 

[Wolfe]

This statement is laughable. Of course not all accidents are due to the driver losing control of the vehicle during such circumstances - but MANY ARE, and stability control would go a long way in reducing the number of accidents with circumstances in which stability control would help.

I would be very surprised if the number of accidents that stability control could have prevented was very high.

Stability control won't stop someone from going way too fast for conditions, it won't stop them from not paying attention, it won't help them stop any sooner than ABS can do alone, and it won't provide magical traction in low-grip situations.

The bottom line is that stability control mainly serves as an artificial confidence-booster for the ordinary driver, preventing some accidents but also indirectly (through over-confidence) causing a handful of other ones. It also greatly undermines an experienced driver's ability to control his/her vehicle, and although those drivers may be able to turn it completely off on some/most models, inexperienced drivers who are already overconfident will likely turn it off as well.

This bill, if passed, will not be effective in reducing the number of accidents by a substantial margin. It will help, but only marginally.

Brilliant in theory, but truly comical if you considered putting it into practice. You want 200 million Americans to go back to driver training? Give me a BREAK.

We never ruled out the idea of allowing current license-holders to be "grandfathered" in under our "plan."

You guys don't think like economists, you don't think like government, and you don't think like average citizens - you think like car enthusiasts, and you can't comprehend why that can't be applied to the population as a whole.

Why do we have to think like economists (who are always looking for the cheapest way out of a problem, regardless of the solution's effectiveness), or average citizens (who are all naive, ignorant, and just plain stupid), or the government (I won't even go there)?

Why can we not express what we think an effective solution would be? As car enthusiasts, we are arguably more qualified than any of the three groups you mentioned when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of automotive technologies, and as citizens of this country, we all have to deal with ignorant people day after day, and should have a fairly decent understanding of how the average person's mind works.



If I'm understanding your position correctly, you're approaching this issue from the perspective of a steadfast realist, agreeing with the bill because the whole idea of it is very likely the only type of "solution" the manufacturers and our government will ever agree upon...and you're right.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are proposing what we think the solution should (but probably never could) be. Are we right? Are we wrong? We'll never find out, because, as you say, our idealistic visions will most likely never be realized. However, that doesn't mean we can't still talk about them.

 

[luftrofl]

...and you can't comprehend why that can't be applied to the population as a whole.

The fact that it's easier to sell to the general public is not proof of its superiority over another idea.

 

[Pupik]

In short, I don't think traction/stability controls will be mandated, as every automaker's system works differently than the next. There's no all-in-one solution for implementing traction control is different for every drivertrain layout and type of vehicle. How do you make standards for that?

Some automakers are going to provide them because it's billed as an extra layer of safety for unforseen conditions, especially on luxury models, which are apt to having engines putting out 300+ horsepower. Many of us would like to see those things installed on a car that has 500hp, since it's a lot of power, and few people can control that sort of power at it's maximum.

But again, why install it on a entry-level car? It's an added expense of little use on a $13,000 car, and just drives prices up. Or the entry-level car market (as we know it now, there will always be an "entry-level") will disintegrate as the prices are forced up, and used cars will take up more of that part of the market.

 

[Jim Prower]

and, I suppose Traction Control/Stability Control bypasses will become very, very common, although illegal. It'd be hard to catch, as long as you're not acting like an idiot, or get into a werck that has to be investigated.

 

[southern347]

Something else just occured to me. These systems could also be used as "black boxes" to show exactly what the vehicle was doing and the drivers inputs during a wreck. All your insurance company would have to do is plug into the obd-II port and download the info into a scanner.

Imagine your insurance company denying your claim, or worse, having tickets or charges if you were just a bit over the speed limit? Yes, I do know that if you are speeding you are breaking the law, and there are consequences, I just dont like the idea of being "watched".

 

[Jim Prower]

...Which is why there'll be blockers, too. also illegal.

hell, some guys may just make new control computers, which don't have any of those functions.

 

[southern347]

Yeah, its possible to swap the whole injection system to an aftermarket unit, but then, who is gonna spend money on that? I keep my cars(except my ram daily driver) before obd-II/1996 anyway.

That being said, there is nothing to stop anyone from buying a car made before any stability control was added.

 

[Slicks]

Something else just occured to me. These systems could also be used as "black boxes" to show exactly what the vehicle was doing and the drivers inputs during a wreck. All your insurance company would have to do is plug into the obd-II port and download the info into a scanner.

Imagine your insurance company denying your claim, or worse, having tickets or charges if you were just a bit over the speed limit? Yes, I do know that if you are speeding you are breaking the law, and there are consequences, I just dont like the idea of being "watched".

I believe there is something similar to this already in place. As far as I know, computer data/inputs from the last XX seconds before the airbag deploys are recorded in some, if not many, modern cars. However, it is often not utilised.

There was talk earlier between Doug/Wolfe/luftrofl about how the automakers will likely have enough sense to integrate an off switch into the system. While I am confident that the automakers would be smart enough to do so, the thought crosses my mind that the government wouldn't, and would possibly not allow an off switch.
I still stand on the position that mandatory ASC would be a hinderance to enthusiasts, while making a minimal impact on traffic accident statistics. Furthermore, there are too many applications and situations that require (Be it for fun or function) wheelspin.




Whatever happened to the days where you could go have fun on a deserted backroad or parking lot?

 

[1X83Z]

This bill, if passed, will not be effective in reducing the number of accidents by a substantial margin. It will help, but only marginally.

So then we agree it will save human lives at minimal interference to the vast majority of drivers?