Are anti-lock brakes overrated?

[RobbieL2415]

Think about it.  If you know what you're doing behind the wheel, you shouldn't ever come into a situation where your wheels would lock up.  If you go slow enough on snowy roads and use a threshold braking technique, in some cases you can actually stop before a vehicle equipped with ABS.  To me, ABS exists because too many people brake improperly, as in they slam the brakes on when they start to loose control of the car instead of applying the breaks earlier and progressively slowing the car down.

Thoughts, anyone?

[jeffandnicole]

If we all knew what we're doing behind the wheel, we wouldn't need seat belts. Or air bags. Or guard rails.

[kphoger]

Think about it.  If you know what you're doing behind the wheel, you shouldn't ever come into a situation where your wheels would lock up. 

Ever hit a deer?

[jakeroot]

Driving is inherently dangerous. Cocking up at any reasonable speed in a very heavy object is a recipe for disaster. Therefore, it is in our best interests for our cars to have safety systems that watch what we're doing, and step in when we don't. In the case of ABS, if a pedestrian steps out into the road and we haven't left enough of a gap to stop without ABS, ABS would potentially prevent a serious collision.

[kalvado]

There were different technologies over time. Personal anecdotal experience:
My first car with ABS behaved.. funny. Once upon a time, on nice fresh snow, it basically refused to brake at all and rolled past stop sign into the middle of intersection. Locked brakes would just create a snow choke in front of the wheel -which would stop the car without an issue. So I drove a few years with ABS disabled.
A 20 year newer car, as tested today, does not engage ABS pulsing in similar conditions - at least until speed is in single digits, and car somehow slows down without an issue.

So your mileage may vary. Looks like newer systems are smarter, computer knows more than just wheel rotation speed and reacts accordingly.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hell why we go back to 15x5 tires and four drum brakes while we're at it?   Of course ABS has merit, I can tell you from driving cars without ABS that it was something I was glad was always there when I didn't expect it.  Driving in Michigan back in the winter used to mean you were going lock up the brakes at some point no matter what.  ABS made things way safer for the average driver, I'd argue that decent traction control made RWD mainstream again. 

Since the OP is from Connecticut, look up Dorwin Hill out in New Milford.  I watched a neighbor look up the brakes after a blizzard which led to a nasty downhill slide into a neighborhood ditch. 

[corco]

I didn't have ABS for a long time while I lived in very snowy/icy climates. When I first got it, I despised it. Now that I'm used to it - I like it. I still near-threshold brake as if the car didn't have ABS, but if I do lock up it's a lot easier to not have to pump the brakes.

Stability control, on the other hand - I've had it for a few years now and still can't get used to that. The first time I ever drove a car with it I damn near went in the ditch  when I corrected while it was correcting and I was intentionally applying a lot of gas on an icy surface (the snow-covered ramp/clear freeway situation which is common in Wyoming a few days after snow storms where you need to get up to speed before hitting the completely cleared freeway from an unplowed ramp) - and needed to get up to speed even without traction. I turn it off now when the roads are snowy/icy.

[Duke87]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

[jakeroot]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

I'd imagine that discount's years are numbered. The vast majority of cars sold in the US in the 21st century have had ABS, and the last car that didn't have it as a standard feature (the JB Kia Rio) has long since been replaced. Don't get me wrong, it's a great feature. But I'm not sure it's necessary to incentivise it anymore.

[kalvado]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

One of the cars I was driving had an automatic seatbelt, and my insurance gave a discount for that.
Automatic seatbelts were on decline at that time - in fact I didn't see any other such cars - as they proved to be a safety issue. That didn't affect discount at all.

I'd imagine that discount's years are numbered. The vast majority of cars sold in the US in the 21st century have had ABS, and the last car that didn't have it as a standard feature (the JB Kia Rio) has long since been replaced. Don't get me wrong, it's a great feature. But I'm not sure it's necessary to incentivise it anymore.

Removing insensitive is difficult. And keeping it doesn't cost much - just tweak the generic rate a bit up so that discount returns it to normal.
Besides, there are different systems, and insurance may factor a bit lower rate for more advanced ones.

[jeffandnicole]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

One of the cars I was driving had an automatic seatbelt, and my insurance gave a discount for that.
Automatic seatbelts were on decline at that time - in fact I didn't see any other such cars - as they proved to be a safety issue. That didn't affect discount at all.

I don't think they were a safety issue specifically...I think two things were happening: some people were disconnecting them, and people preferred airbags over auto seatbelts.

Early on, car manufactors were required to install auto seatbelts OR airbags. Airbags decidedly became the standard for safety.

[kalvado]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

One of the cars I was driving had an automatic seatbelt, and my insurance gave a discount for that.
Automatic seatbelts were on decline at that time - in fact I didn't see any other such cars - as they proved to be a safety issue. That didn't affect discount at all.

I don't think they were a safety issue specifically...I think two things were happening: some people were disconnecting them, and people preferred airbags over auto seatbelts.

Early on, car manufactors were required to install auto seatbelts OR airbags. Airbags decidedly became the standard for safety.

Automatic seatbelts ended up safety issue as it was only a shoulder belt - lap belt was still manual. Most people ended up using automatic shoulder belt only, and there was a very specific issue associated with that: after impact, lower part of the body was sliding forward as there was nothing holding it at the lap, chin was caught by the shoulder belt, and as body was sliding forward that resulted in neck injury - often fatal one.

[Brandon]

IMHO, yes and no.  ABS will aid you in stopping quickly on dry of wet pavement, but seems to be rather useless on ice for anything other than merely keeping the vehicle in a straight line.  It's better, on ice, to downshift and brake gently.

[US 81]

There is also a certain amount of increased risk-taking among certain drivers. People (probably not most of the people on this board, but the average Joe Schmo) tend to drive slightly faster, slightly more recklessly than they would have in the same conditions because they know they are now driving with anti-lock brakes, stability control, etc; they assume the ABS will get them out of whatever driving situation the bad weather created, not having the same awareness as Brandon, above, for example.

[kphoger]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

I'd imagine that discount's years are numbered. The vast majority of cars sold in the US in the 21st century have had ABS, and the last car that didn't have it as a standard feature (the JB Kia Rio) has long since been replaced. Don't get me wrong, it's a great feature. But I'm not sure it's necessary to incentivise it anymore.

If you go to insure an antique car without ABS, should you pay the same rate as if it had ABS?  If not, then there's a reason to incentivise ABS.

[kalvado]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

I'd imagine that discount's years are numbered. The vast majority of cars sold in the US in the 21st century have had ABS, and the last car that didn't have it as a standard feature (the JB Kia Rio) has long since been replaced. Don't get me wrong, it's a great feature. But I'm not sure it's necessary to incentivise it anymore.

If you go to insure an antique car without ABS, should you pay the same rate as if it had ABS?  If not, then there's a reason to incentivise ABS.

You can apply same logic to seatbelts, which were not present in Ford-T.  Where is my seatbelt discount?

[kphoger]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

I'd imagine that discount's years are numbered. The vast majority of cars sold in the US in the 21st century have had ABS, and the last car that didn't have it as a standard feature (the JB Kia Rio) has long since been replaced. Don't get me wrong, it's a great feature. But I'm not sure it's necessary to incentivise it anymore.

If you go to insure an antique car without ABS, should you pay the same rate as if it had ABS?  If not, then there's a reason to incentivise ABS.

You can apply same logic to seatbelts, which were not present in Ford-T.  Where is my seatbelt discount?

Are you certain it doesn't cost extra to insure a car without seat belts?

[corco]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

I'd imagine that discount's years are numbered. The vast majority of cars sold in the US in the 21st century have had ABS, and the last car that didn't have it as a standard feature (the JB Kia Rio) has long since been replaced. Don't get me wrong, it's a great feature. But I'm not sure it's necessary to incentivise it anymore.

If you go to insure an antique car without ABS, should you pay the same rate as if it had ABS?  If not, then there's a reason to incentivise ABS.

You can apply same logic to seatbelts, which were not present in Ford-T.  Where is my seatbelt discount?

Are you certain it doesn't cost extra to insure a car without seat belts?

Pretty sure I get a discount on my insurance because I state I use a seatbelt every time I drive. If my car didn't have seatbelts, I wouldn't be able to claim that discount, so, yeah, it still exists.

[1995hoo]

Regarding antilock brakes, I still find it somewhat astonishing how many people I've spoken to don't know how they work. I've known quite a few people who have said their antilock brakes don't work correctly because "the pedal started vibrating, so I took my foot off." They're always astonished when I tell them that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. 

[kalvado]

Regarding antilock brakes, I still find it somewhat astonishing how many people I've spoken to don't know how they work. I've known quite a few people who have said their antilock brakes don't work correctly because "the pedal started vibrating, so I took my foot off." They're always astonished when I tell them that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. 

Generally speaking, pulsation means system gave up on the task and does more harm than good.

[jakeroot]

Car insurance companies will give you a lower rate to insure a car with anti-lock brakes. That is a pretty definitive assessment that they are worthwhile - insurance companies know what reduces their likelihood of having a claim to pay out, and they know it well.

I'd imagine that discount's years are numbered. The vast majority of cars sold in the US in the 21st century have had ABS, and the last car that didn't have it as a standard feature (the JB Kia Rio) has long since been replaced. Don't get me wrong, it's a great feature. But I'm not sure it's necessary to incentivise it anymore.

If you go to insure an antique car without ABS, should you pay the same rate as if it had ABS?  If not, then there's a reason to incentivise ABS.

You can apply same logic to seatbelts, which were not present in Ford-T.  Where is my seatbelt discount?

Are you certain it doesn't cost extra to insure a car without seat belts?

Pretty sure I get a discount on my insurance because I state I use a seatbelt every time I drive. If my car didn't have seatbelts, I wouldn't be able to claim that discount, so, yeah, it still exists.

To make it clear, I never said an ABS discount didn't exist. I just said that I thought it would eventually be on its way out, likely to be replaced by a (not necessarily obvious on your statement) penalty for driving without ABS.

Insurance corporations still need to make money. They aren't going to make money by endlessly incentivising every safety feature. They will at first, because they know it's good PR, but once they become standard features, they'll eventually just start to penalise those who don't have the feature.

[1995hoo]

Regarding antilock brakes, I still find it somewhat astonishing how many people I've spoken to don't know how they work. I've known quite a few people who have said their antilock brakes don't work correctly because "the pedal started vibrating, so I took my foot off." They're always astonished when I tell them that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. 

Generally speaking, pulsation means system gave up on the task and does more harm than good.

Not according to anything I've ever read anywhere. The pedal viberates because the system pumps the brakes far faster than any human being is capable of doing. Now, you could say that the person might have done better to brake in a way that would not have necessitated the vibration, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that as a general comment.

[kalvado]

Regarding antilock brakes, I still find it somewhat astonishing how many people I've spoken to don't know how they work. I've known quite a few people who have said their antilock brakes don't work correctly because "the pedal started vibrating, so I took my foot off." They're always astonished when I tell them that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. 

Generally speaking, pulsation means system gave up on the task and does more harm than good.

Not according to anything I've ever read anywhere. The pedal viberates because the system pumps the brakes far faster than any human being is capable of doing. Now, you could say that the person might have done better to brake in a way that would not have necessitated the vibration, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that as a general comment.

No, what I am saying is that with fully electronic brakes, there is no need to "open valve", "easy on the pedal" can be done without vibration. Or without any mechanical feedback, for that matter.
Large swing in actuation means oscillations of the output variable.
Thinking about it, vibrating pedal maybe a way of relaying message to the driver..

[Duke87]

To make it clear, I never said an ABS discount didn't exist. I just said that I thought it would eventually be on its way out, likely to be replaced by a (not necessarily obvious on your statement) penalty for driving without ABS.

These two things are mathematically equivalent. Either way there is a delta of X dollars between what you pay if you have ABS and what you pay if you don't. Which one is treated as the baseline condition doesn't make a difference to the profit margin on each policy and is merely a marketing decision.

[jakeroot]

To make it clear, I never said an ABS discount didn't exist. I just said that I thought it would eventually be on its way out, likely to be replaced by a (not necessarily obvious on your statement) penalty for driving without ABS.

These two things are mathematically equivalent. Either way there is a delta of X dollars between what you pay if you have ABS and what you pay if you don't. Which one is treated as the baseline condition doesn't make a difference to the profit margin on each policy and is merely a marketing decision.

Maybe. It's entirely possible that insurance corporations will increase insurance costs to pre-discount levels, and increase the costs above that new baseline for those without ABS.