ABS on Cars: Good or Bad Thing?

Note that the TTAC article is from 2006. However, since then, it turned out that ESC (Electronic Stability Control), which builds upon ABS, is a game-changer. ESC prevents so many rollovers, injuries, and deaths that it might be the second most important safety feature after seat belts. Any possible safety penalty from ABS is vastly outweighed by the benefit of ESC. (My recollection is that at least some of the studies establishing the efficacy of ESC had not yet been done when that TTAC article was written.)

 

I'm a quick study, but my car can modulate all four brake circuits, which would be twice as many pedals as I've got feet.

 

Without reading the article or any of the other posts above I'm going to give my thoughts on "Killer ABS"
Just like anything else in a cars life ABS can suffer from a lot of issues. One being a possible specific scenario where
ABS automation is less effective than brake pedal use at stopping the car.

Like the takata air bag recalls any ABS system made with parts that wear quickly or ABS of older cars
with worn sensors or showing codes can obviously make ABS less safe then using the brake pedal manually.

Now let me go read the article so I can see how silly this post looks after.

 

The car only knows how to keep tires from stopping rotation, the driver can decide whether this is desired and act accordingly. The drawback to ABS - no off switch for those times when it is not desired.

 

Only in the sense that most people would stop driving/drive a lot less as its stupidly illogical to risk your life for things such as picking up groceries or going to the movies.

The idea of "safer cars = more reckless drivers" is just another form of the induced demand argument. While it does contain some truth, in practice, it often turns out to be a net benefit.

 

"August 14, 2006"

Just curious, was there something that triggered this review of a 13 year old article?

I started Google searching for the mentioned papers but didn't have much luck. Meanwhile, I read the Wiki article and it appears there are many variants. Given the range of ABS technologies and developments in the past 13 years, it may make sense to more precisely measure their characteristics. The SAE library may have more recent papers.

Bob Wilson

 

It is like anti-vaccination, just because it has been disproved for a decade is no sign you should give up your beliefs! The Flat Earthers have not given up to mere facts!

 

Yep, I was thinking older AWD.

It seems the only legitimate times to turn ABS off all involve uses not on public roads.

Stopping distance is only one factor in avoiding a collision in a panic stop. The other is control, and ABS does provide that when most drivers would have locked up all four wheels without it.

 

As the owner manual points out, ABS is not ideal in all circumstances and will likely increase stopping distance (i.e. gravel, deep snow, etc.), yet there is no option to disable it when you encounter these conditions (short of pulling a fuse). These conditions are commonly encountered on public roads, depending where you live.

In gravel or deep snow, stopping can be shorter with locked wheels, as the loose material builds up in front of the locked wheel and acts as a wedge.

 

And that ancient article claims that is a bad thing! If you can still steer, you might do it badly. They seem to feel that skidding in the direction you were going when you applied the brakes is safer than steering around the object, because you might over steer and roll over.

 

As far as I can tell, most (if not all) of the other "safety" features of the car (or driver assist systems) can be disabled. Airbags can hurt small children, so a seat sensor was added to disable the passenger side. Some cars have a disable switch for the passenger side. Traction control, electronic stability system, lane departure, radar cruise, blind spot monitoring, auto high beams, pre-collision, can all be disabled. Why not ABS as well, for the same reasons as the others can be disabled?

 

I recall insurers offering significant discounts (10%) if the car was equipped with ABS. This was just as ABS was becoming widely available. I don’t know if that’s still in there as a line item, if it’s been baked in now that everything has ABS, or if it’s been quietly forgotten.

But I’d say that if the people footing the bills for the crashes can afford to cut you a break, then ABS enabled and active is a good default for most drivers.

Likewise I am also a bit surprised that the same discounts have not emerged for the latest vehicles spackled with their alphabet soup of three-letter-acronym safety gear.

 

Stopping in 100ft instead of 120ft doesn't help when the reason for braking is at 80ft, and you can't steer around it.

Yes, there are limits to ABS. Part of being a good driver is knowing the limits of the car, and not going beyond them. A driver with the knowledge and experience could be better off without ABS. Most drivers on American roads don't meet those criteria, but they think they do. Give them the option to turn off ABS, and they will for times when they shouldn't. People already do that with stability control, and they end up losing control of the car.

 

I agree with you there, but I'm curious why the other items can be disabled but ABS cannot be. Perhaps a regulation? I'm sure insurers like stability control and pre-collision systems operational, yet the systems have OFF switches.

For those numbers, yes. But if the difference was stopping in 90 feet vs. 70 feet to miss an obstacle at 80 feet, then the outcome is different.

 

Hopefully I’m not pushing your example too far, but it occurs to me that a minor overshoot like that could well be within the rating of a pair of 5mph bumpers.

And let’s face it, the whole automotive economy wants more fender benders and fewer dead customers.

More little oopsies and fewer horror-wrecks is a win for everyone, in that context.

 

True, unless it's the edge of a cliff.

 

And they say curling has no audience….