Ovr, even if the IIHS is using these types of media announcements as a lobbying tool to cut their costs, the end result in this case is extremely positive for the consumers. There is not a single negative aspect of promoting ESC, a grand nanny ready to step in if someone is about to loose control of his or her vehicle.
The governments react too slowy; the car companies don't want to increase the base vehicle costs (even when it is marginal). Is it so bad that a private group lobbying results in safer vehicles?
Possibly their actions can help; but I think that the thrust of the article is that the help is mis-directed ie. would it not be better to improve driver education and habits than to build ever increasingly complex/heavy vehicles, and to promote technology that takes away control from the driver? I think that is what they are saying here. Soon we will be transported (because we won't be driving) in some auto-driving, heavily padded "thing" that will make accidents rare and self-determination a mere memory. I think that disturbs some ppl. Personally, I don't want to "drive" something like that. Why not safer drivers AND safer vehicles?
Ovr, I agree to an extent. My greater problem with studies like this trying to force tech 'solutions' like ESC down everyone's throat is that now consumers will begin demanding it -- assuming that it will make their cars safer. Overall, this is probably true, however what happens when car makers are forced to try to develop these complex systems for low end cars? Well you get something like the situation where GM put half-assed-developed ABS or airbag systems in half-assed cars like the Cavalier. Didn't stopping distances in 'non-slippery' situations often get extended because of ABS in these cases? Didn't people end up with a number of severe airbag injuries because of systems hurried to market without proper development first (unlike current 2-stage setups)?
Beyond all that, I suppose one could also argue that the electro nannies will also help contribute to increases in the 'invicibility mentalities' when behind the wheel too. "My car has ABS, AWD, ESC, TCS, SRS and XYZ so I'm not afraid to go passing everyone on the highway in the snowstorm"
The trouble is, when the media gets ahold of information like this, consumers on average, won't educate themselves enough to fully understand automotive dynamics and fully appreciate when ESC can and won't aid the driver. Wouldn't it be misleading to present a small Cute-Ute (for example) that is designed with economy in mind first and foremost that has a mediocre ESC system with a tall, less stable, heavier vehicle and perhaps a soft, comfortable suspension set up (more prone to roll-overs, longer stopping distance and generally poorer handling) than -- for example -- an Impreza with a superbly developed AWD and ABS system and decent handling -- as a 'safer' vehicle?
