This week lawmakers will be proposing that stability-control systems be federally mandated for all new vehicles sold in the U.S. USA Today reports that comments will be taken for 90 days on the proposal and if approved a final rule could be issued as early as next year with a phase-in period to allow automakers enough time to disseminate the technology across their entire line ups. Currently stability control is available on about half of all new models sold, but in some instances can cost up to $900 as an option. Studies have shown, however, that stability control can save a lot of lives, somewhere in the order of 10,000 per year. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, if the technology were made standard, then fatal single-vehicle crashes would fall by 56% and the risk of single-vehicles crashes would drop 40%.
Since anti-lock brakes are an integral component in stability-control systems, the new rule would also make that technology standard across the board for the first time. Though it has never been federally mandated as standard equipment, ABS is now standard on 80% of all new vehicles sold.
[Source: USA Today]
CAR reveals spy shots of McLaren P11 supercar
2010 Chevrolet Camaro priced: LS $22,995, SS $30,995
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
In the Autobog Garage: 2009 Chevy Cobalt SS Turbo
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
motorman @ Sep 11th 2006 4:46PM
all this will do is make cars and trucks more expensive and the drunken drivers will still find ways to kill themselves and others.
GeoTracker @ Sep 11th 2006 4:54PM
Why not legislate better driver's education and stricter licensing laws? Germany has drivers that drive at a higher rate of speed without stability control and they have less accidents.
UpIrons @ Sep 11th 2006 5:03PM
Actually Germany, and most other European countries, already have mandated stability control laws for automakers so once again we are just playing catch up.
Testudo @ Sep 11th 2006 5:05PM
Excellent idea, at least for the 80% of cars that have antilock breaks anyway. Although it seems resonable to make an exception for cars without ABS, at the low end.
Kevin @ Sep 11th 2006 5:06PM
I agree with the first post. More money for the auto makers and still the same amount of drunk driving accidents.
http://duifacts.blogspot.com
Chad Gallion @ Sep 11th 2006 5:07PM
I fine with mandating features that really are effective at saving lives. I wouldn't mind if they put speed restrictions on certain types of vehicles to inhibit severe accident situations (i.e. Why do SUVs have to be able to go over 100mph?)
Your right #2. Far more stringent driver education and traffic enforcement would be a far cheaper and more effective solution.
Noah Daniels @ Sep 11th 2006 5:08PM
Just make sure there's a way to turn it off. Stability programs are a liability in certain situations (slush/snow/ice at low speeds, where all they do is keep you from moving at all).
Brian @ Sep 11th 2006 5:14PM
*SIGH*
If you want to make the roads safer, it's time to tighten up training. Require testing every X amount of years, ENFORCE TRAFFIC LAWS.
Let's not increase the cost of all vechicles, let's make everyone safer drivers, ok?
oh, wait, it's the US governement. Sorry.
Brett @ Sep 11th 2006 5:17PM
Great. It looks like I'll be be driving cars from the late eighties/early nineties for the rest of my life. Thanks nanny state USA! Maybe they should mandate helmets? I bet that would save some lives!
Dave T. @ Sep 11th 2006 5:35PM
basically the concept is that this will help prevent single vehicle accidents due to skidding, bad weather, inproper driver response etc.
After taking on numerous courses that showed how stability control really works in extreme driving there's no way I would say choose a car without stability control if you have the option. it is that great a technology. It is not a nanny. If you want to take your sports car to the track or burn out at the light guess what? you hit the button and turn the traction control off.
Jamie @ Sep 11th 2006 5:37PM
Why don't they outlaw cars an dput people in buses?
As for this laugh:
6. I fine with mandating features that really are effective at saving lives. I wouldn't mind if they put speed restrictions on certain types of vehicles to inhibit severe accident situations (i.e. Why do SUVs have to be able to go over 100mph?)
Posted at 5:07PM on Sep 11th 2006 by Chad Gallion 0 stars
--------------------------------
Why should cars be allowed to go over 50mph?
SUCs don't cause all the crashes you know. As a matter of fact, they are in the minority.
David @ Sep 11th 2006 5:39PM
Brett,
Already mandated are several of the safety features both active and passive, that have GREATLY reduced deaths in traffic accidents since the early 60's. In 1960, the US, with a population of 180 million saw roughly 50K traffic deaths a year. Now, with a population approaching 300 million, with more cars and more miles driven than ever, we suffer about 25% fewer than that. Imagine what modern insurance rates would be if the ratio of traffic deaths to population had remained constant over the last forty-five years.
It always baffles me when some of the people who post to this site get upset everytime a proposal to make driving less dangerous is discussed. The last time this happened it had something to do with child safety seats. At the end of the day none of us drive on empty roads by ourselves.Car safety affects all of us, from the impact it has on insurance rates to whether or not one person's mistake results in an accident that involves and injures or kills people who were simply passengers in that vehicle or other drivers or pedestrians.
G. Snyder @ Sep 11th 2006 5:45PM
"1. all this will do is make cars and trucks more expensive and the drunken drivers will still find ways to kill themselves and others."
Get this man an 8 Track.
The technology is realtively inexpensive now. It is mostly solid-state electronics. I am dumbfounded by the drunk driving comment- what does it have to do with anything. This technology is not marketed at drunks - it helps anyone and everyone. So few people understand the physics of the car and thinks like polar moment of inertia. This bails people out who get over their heads. While there are no studies that suggest ABS has made any reductions in accident rates, there is proof that this technology has. How can you not embrace this?
Scott @ Sep 11th 2006 5:49PM
Why does the automaker always get the shaft? They should do it if they want to. Everytime there is so rash of accidents, it is always the car manufacturers that have to add items. How about personal responsibility? How about suspending licenses? Or a few days in jail if driving with a suspended license? That might have a stronger effect on how people behave behind a wheel. I would gladly see my already extra spent insurance maoney go to a "Five Day Jail House" and I am sure the Automakers will kick in also to fund it. It is simply time to make people more responsible for their actions.
carbuzzard @ Sep 11th 2006 5:53PM
I think that one concern of many of the posters, David, is that the government is mandating more and more. Interestingly enough, most of the more significant advances in car safety were not government mandates. For example, disc brakes, ABS, radial tires. I'll include seatbelts, which were optional before being mandated, and some people actually bought them (thanks, Dad) and used them without being told to.
For the record, however, I am against motorcycle helmet laws. Cleans out the shallow end of the gene pool, doncha know.
Howard Kerr @ Sep 11th 2006 5:59PM
Funny / ironic...all these posts advocating more technology be put in cars and trucks. Many of the posts (HELL, most of them) put forth reasonable arguments. However, consider how many miles are driven by how many drivers each year in vehicles that DON'T have stability control.
By the way, Dave T. do you really think there will be an OFF button if stability control becomes mandatory? Is there an OFF button for vehicles that have anti-lock brakes? I think stability control is a great thing, I just don't want the government to make cars more expensive just so I can be marginally safer. I also think airbags should be optional, so maybe I'm a lone nutcase?
motorman @ Sep 11th 2006 6:06PM
g snyder i drive a C-6 corvette with active handling and it is great. if it was cheap it would be std on a cobalt because there are more people killed in cobalts than corvettes just because of the numbers sold.it would add quite a lot to a price of a cobalt. i stll stand by my first statement people will find a way to kill themselves and others no matter what safety devices are installed on cars.
Mal Fuller @ Sep 11th 2006 6:13PM
Terrific! Make everyone pay through the nose for the stupidity of a few drivers. This is sort of mindful of Autoblog banning everyone's comments, using the actions of a few for an excuse.
DPC car videos @ Sep 11th 2006 6:29PM
I drove our older Explorer the other day without stability control and then jumped into our BMW X3 with stability control and you sure become a better driver in the X3 thanks to the computers.
Whydrive @ Sep 11th 2006 6:46PM
The reason why some European countries like Germany enjoy lower accident rates is because of the way folks drive over there. Drivers are a lot more courteous over there than here in the States. The two driving habits I'd like to see folks stop are:
1) Passing from the right
2) Cruising in the left-most lane without regards to traffic conditions