Let's be honest, it's not "perfectly safe to drive"....
Well, no car is, but its probably no more dangerous than a car without ABS, which isn't all that much more dangerous than the same car with it.
In 2000, ABS was estimated to be about 3% better for drivers as a whole, but about 10% worse for older men (like me), and about 20% worse for women as a whole. (Table 7), so it might be safer unfixed.
They suggest (with some evidence) that this was due to unfamiliarity, which will probably no longer apply to the same extent, though it does to me apart from company car exposure around 2000.
So since I've never had it, I might be better off without it. Paradox or what?
www.trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/documents/TRL453.pdf
Broughton, Jeremy & Baughan, Chris. (2002). The effectiveness of antilock braking systems in reducing accidents in Great Britain. Accident; analysis and prevention. 34. 347-55. 10.1016/S0001-4575(01)00032-X
www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/218270/...f
Burton, D. M., Delaney, A. K., Newstead, S. V., Logan, D., & Fildes, B. N. (2004). Effectiveness of ABS and Vehicle Stability Control Systems. (04/01 ed.) Royal Automobile Club of Victoria Ltd.
Is similarly unconvincing/unconvinced for Australia, saying "The analyses performed on local data suggested that ABS may have had some benefit in reducing injury severity to vehicle occupants in some specific models but these findings were rather weak and inconsistent. "
I suppose it would now be rather hard to extract a meaningful comparison from accident data, since the sample of non-ABS vehicles would be too small, so it becomes an unchallengable recieved opinion.
Edited by edlithgow on 23/05/2025 at 10:05
|