U.S. to require car stability control
 

I've never had a car with stability control, but I would like it for my wife in bad weather. That said, I dread the idea of more electronic babysitters, more complexity, and more cost.

U.S. to require car stability control
Federal agency proposal is expected
JAYNE O'DONNELL
USA TODAY

September 11, 2006

Federal officials this week are expected to propose requiring that all vehicles have stability-control systems to reduce the risk of rollovers and other crashes.

More than 10,000 lives could be saved each year when the systems, which use brakes and engine power to keep a car from veering out of the driver's control, are on all vehicles, says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. That would make it the most life-saving safety device since the seat belt.

When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposed rule becomes final, it would likely be at least three years before stability control would be on all new vehicles. It is available on more than half of new vehicles sold but can cost up to $900 as a stand-alone option.

NHTSA typically lets automakers decide on the technology they use to meet the agency's rules. But studies have been so convincing about stability control's ability to dramatically reduce crashes that Congress ordered NHTSA to require it. Comments on the proposal will be taken for 60 days, and a final rule will likely be issued early next year.

Automakers aren't expected to oppose the requirement. But those that currently have fewer models with stability control likely will argue for a lengthy phase-in period.

Bill Kozyra, CEO of Continental Teves, a supplier of stability-control systems, says one of the benefits is that it doesn't require drivers to do anything other than what they'd typically do in an emergency -- steer. The system kicks in when the vehicle isn't heading where the driver intended and helps bring it back under the driver's control.

"You don't know it's really there helping you until something happens," says Andy Brown of supplier Delphi. "Then you see the merits."

IIHS estimates that if all vehicles had stability control, the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes would be reduced by 56% and the overall risk of single-vehicle crashes would be cut by 40%.

The proposed rule comes about two decades after engineers began testing stability control. The effort was slowed about 10 years ago because of questions about the benefits of anti-lock brakes (ABS), the backbone of stability control.

The ABS problem ultimately was linked to misuse by drivers who needed to be taught not to pump anti-lock brakes as they would conventional brakes but to "stomp and steer."

NHTSA never required ABS, but more than 80% of new vehicles have it as standard equipment. It is also needed for technology such as traction control and automatically adjusting cruise control.

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.

(Sigh)

One more system to fail.........

(Not that I am against technology, it's just that so many things have been added over the years that the next step will probably be totally automated cars...tell it where you want to go and "leave the driving to us") I am a fan of Nigel Shiftright....Simplicity rules!!

My wife's Audi has it. When driving hard, it's intrusive and awful. But when you're driving like a zombie, half drunk from a nice dinner downtown, in bad weather, paying more attention to the radio or the passengers than the road, it's a great help. And since most Americans fall into the latter category most of the time...

How 'bout encouraging manufacturers to build vehicles that don't have a center of gravity about six feet above the road?

Oh wait, that'd be "intrusive" wouldn't it?

Here's one for the conspiracy therorists:
1. GPS finds you on a deserted twisty
2. The drive-by-wire goes into WOT mode
3. Left front ABS comes on full
4. Guido doesn't have to be paid to knock on the front door. Just like Princess Di.

And that's why my cars will be old...

But I have to admit, the competency of most drivers is so low that it seems like a good idea for most people to have it. I just can't imagine what it would be like on low end cars. What, I picture a guy that sits in the back seat and yells at you telling you to slow down.

LOL!!!

It is a typical American response to a problem. Regulate it and throw money at it.

It's funny. I bet that the auto manufacturers won't complain about this edict (I smell a nice mark up), but if they are told that their fleets have to get one mpg better, no way! Good gas mileage is un-American and restricts our freedom of choice!

OK, then how about my freedom of choice to buy a car without all of this electronic cr@p?

BTW, have you guys seen the Lexus that parks itself? Seriously. I couldn't make that up.

You know how it is, it's either standard or an option on mid-priced to expensive cars. Some buying cheap cars want it for little or no cost premium, so they go to government and have it made mandatory, so that those also buying cheap cars that really don't want or need it have to share the cost.

Abuse of government power at its finest.

10:1 it wasn't poor people who want it free that lobbied for it. 10:1 it was Delphi and the like. The people who make it and want it to be govt mandated that every car have it instead of just some. Some of the info in the article smells like week old fish to me.

Yep, that too. Corporate welfare is government abuse as well.