Quote:
Originally Posted by meat
I concur.
It's an excellent idea to put a braking system in a car that allows it to safely stop in a greater distance than it should if the person behind the wheel were a competent driver. That way drivers can get an unwarranted belief that they are a 'good driver' and can move on the more important tasks while behind the wheel like applying make-up, eating lunch, reading the paper and talking on a cell phone.
I used to be able to bring my 1965 Mustang Fastback with manual brakes safely to a stop from 65 mph in about 120 feet.
The quintessential soccer-mom vehicle - the Chevy Tahoe - equipped with ABS and following a safe distance behind at 65 mph stops 12 feet beyond where I did. So, technically, the Tahoe with it's ABS system stops when it hits my non-ABS car.
That distance changes dramatically if the driver of the vehicle is on a cell phone.
Yeah, thank God for anti-lock brakes. They empower the incompetent.
Your pal,
Meat.
|
I will bet that the tahoe with antilock brakes stops shorter than the tahoe without antilock brakes thereby being safer. Guess what, my Mustang stops shorter than my F150. Big surprise there huh? You continue to compare apples to oranges. It is simple, If I can stop without running the light, and fully maintain control of my car, and someone hits me, they are following to close. They are at fault for the accident no matter how hard I hit the brakes. If their vehicle requires more stopping room than mine and they are not accounting for that increased distance, they are guilty of "Failure to maintain a safe distance."