On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, Robert J Donahue/DELCO wrote:
> Does anybody else get the feeling that we are spending loads of
> money to make accidents survivable, but nothing to prevent them?
I agree. While many list people like their rubber bumper B's, how many
think that the change improved the safety of the car? These changes add a
lot of cost, and part of the result is that cars are so expensive in the
name of safety that many people have to drive tired, rusted out hulks that
really are dangerous.
I debated ABS for my Accord. It would have cost about $900. I've driven
roughly 600,000 miles without a dent and without locking the brakes on
either dry or wet pavement. On snow, locking the brakes generally stops
you faster than ABS would. On ice, I figure ABS would just shut off the
brakes completely. So ABS looked to me like a waste of money.
I bought 4 high quality studded snow tires instead. At least, it
appears that the government is unlikely to require ABS on all cars, given
that it is expensive and data are beginning to show it does not reduce
accident frequency. Usually, our elected reps act first and wait to see
later if it made any sense.
Ray Gibbons Dept. of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics
Univ. of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
firstname.lastname@example.org (802) 656-8910