“Nanny state”, really? This has nothing to do with government regulations, it has to do with auto manufacturers having better luck selling cars to people that are still alive. 99% of drivers aren’t capable of keeping a vehicle under control in bad conditions without the electronic aids, and that includes most “I know better than the computer” drivers.
You shouldn’t be getting any service warnings when you hold the button down. I’d scan for codes if you have the ability, and take it to the dealer if you don’t. Something isn’t right there.
Do you have the tazer? That sounds like you activated the "TC kill" option.
Ok, 99% was a bit hyperbolic, but the point still stands. Yes people drove cars for a while without them. Accident rates and death rates were also much higher back in the days of safety feature-less cars. I don’t have the time right now to pull up sources, but I’ll do so later if I can remember.
Of course they are. That doesn’t mean that the items in question didn’t affect them though. Like anything else, the change is additive. Unless you’re arguing that none of these safety features or driving aids have made any impact on actual safety?
That is a function of the Tazer Mini and it stated you had to shut the engine off and back on to reset as it disabled the entire ABS system.
I do, I'll have to research this more. Thanks!
Bolded is my emphasis. You're entitled to your belief there, but I don't think the answer is as obvious as you're suggesting it is. I'm actually with you that stability control has a large and positive impact on safety, but the alternative here isn't 'no stability control,' it's defeatable stability control. So the cost/benefit is:
Respectfully, you're being unfair here. People didn't drive cars for "a while" without stability control, the vast majority of all cars ever sold lack the feature including literally every car for the first century of the automotive industry. And, no one is arguing that "none" of the safety features introduced have made "any" impact on safety, the claim being made by DocMike is far narrower - merely that the implementation of one safety feature could be adjusted without causing an appreciable increase in crashes. And again I note this as a person who actually agrees with your larger premise - that ESC is a very beneficial feature and saves many lives!
I think you’re disagreeing with an argument that I’m not making. I’m firmly in support of being able to defeat traction control and ESC, which you can do in the Gladiator, and which I’ve done on a number of occasions. It gets sideways in the dirt much easier that way.Bolded is my emphasis. You're entitled to your belief there, but I don't think the answer is as obvious as you're suggesting it is. I'm actually with you that stability control has a large and positive impact on safety, but the alternative here isn't 'no stability control,' it's defeatable stability control. So the cost/benefit is:
(A) Increased Danger Due to Voluntary and Intentional Stability Control Deactivation * (B) Percentage of Drivers Subject to Said Danger (aka from your original 99%, which we can adjust downward by some value, though many of those won't actually opt to ever deactivate the feature) - (C) Decreased Danger Due to Voluntary and Intentional Stability Control Deactivation * (D) Percentage of Drivers Subject to Said Benefit VS (E) Enjoyment Gained by Fully Defeatable Stability Control by Enthusiasts * (F) Percentage of Drivers that are Enthusiasts - (G) Annoyance of the Existence of Defeatable Cruise by Those Who Care (I'll call them 'killjoys') * (H) Percentage of Drivers that are Killjoys
(C) * (D) (the "if I didn't have airbags my lighter car could dodge the crash" argument) can be reduced to approx. 0, and (G) * (H) ("I'm angry someone else is having a good time!") probably reduces towards 0 in the real world even if it would poll at some positive value if we took a survey. So the real question is should we let the "hey boys watch this!" crowd have their fun and be able to turn stability control off when they want (but again to default with it on in all vehicles). I'm not certain the answer there is 'yes' but I think we're far past "we need the feature or all the customers will be dead."
Respectfully, you're being unfair here. People didn't drive cars for "a while" without stability control, the vast majority of all cars ever sold lack the feature including literally every car for the first century of the automotive industry. And, no one is arguing that "none" of the safety features introduced have made "any" impact on safety, the claim being made by DocMike is far narrower - merely that the implementation of one safety feature could be adjusted without causing an appreciable increase in crashes. And again I note this as a person who actually agrees with your larger premise - that ESC is a very beneficial feature and saves many lives!
