ESP

[TripleS]

I Wouldn't say. It's an active safety measure compared to a passive one. Also, the seatbelt can be seen as multi-functional when compared to the stability control, which only works in skidding situations which are less frequent than collisions caused due to outright "traffic management" related collisions (front to-rear collisions due to tailgating, e.g.).

Also, ESP has it's own limit. We once set out to judge the system's limits, and had some interesting findings. Most stability programs are capable of keeping you safe only in deviations of up to 25-30% of the critical speed for the turn. Even at lower velocities, it often takes a driver's input to assist the system, either by maintaining directional control over the car and steering it to safety (during oversteer) or by braking it lightly (during understeer).

In particular, the system showed a lower ability to handle understeer than it did with oversteer, even though it is far more common. The problem is that the system handles the skid via assymetric braking, which in the event of understeer happens by braking the inside-rear tyre, which during understeer has little weight (and thus little grip) on it, and might even be swung airborne due to the rear anti-roll bar.

The system also had problems to deal with under-inflated tyres, mis-aligned suspension and other car problems, provocative driver's inputs or very problematic driving conditions like very steep slopes or high slippery conditions like when driving on polished ice or when aquaplaning.

Goodness me. Whatever happened to taking it easy?

My current car has ESP as standard but I'd have saved the money if I'd had the option. It's completely unnecessary, IMO.

I see you've reactivated HPC membership. TBH I largely agree with you, but I expect that leaves us in a minority of two. I wouldn't spend appreciable money on it either, and the same goes for ABS.

[TripleS]

Or maybe I should just go on a Don Palmer course and buy a TVR

I cannot speak for Don specifically, but other limit handling gurus have told me they are happy to enjoy the safety net of ESP in case an animal jumps out in front of the car on a dark and rainy night.

I think that when the compulsory fitment of ESP to cheaper cars (all more expensive cars have had it for years) works its way through the system to the vehicles generally driven by new and young drivers, say 10 years from now, there will be a significant reduction in serious injuries from single vehicle accidents. A much bigger reduction than would be achieved by making any conceivable amount of limit handling training compulsory.

I would venture to suggest that an even better result would be obtained by further development of new driver training and testing regimes, accompanied by much more attention to the attitude and approach factors, rather than practical skills.

[TripleS]

I think that when the compulsory fitment of ESP to cheaper cars (all more expensive cars have had it for years) works its way through the system to the vehicles generally driven by new and young drivers, say 10 years from now, there will be a significant reduction in serious injuries from single vehicle accidents. A much bigger reduction than would be achieved by making any conceivable amount of limit handling training compulsory.

I wonder if this will be true. Having gone beyond their limit and the car has corrected their mistake, will they have the sense to realise what has happened or will the continue to push the boundaries and overrun the system anyway.

Most people have a healthy sense of danger which means they never go anywhere near the limits. ESP and other safety aids are only there to mitigate the effects of the moronic minority. Once the idiots discover they can drive even more recklessly in the hope the technology will get them out of trouble, they will. We'll then be back to square one.

Yes, and many drivers will end up with cars that are loaded with more and more technology that will be ridiculously expensive to maintain. This is not the right way to go IMHO.

[TripleS]

'Taking it easy' and good observation (even as an experienced advanced driver) does not guarantee that you will not find yourself having to execute an emergency manoeuvre, and where ESP might be of benefit (although in certain situations I accept it could be a hindrance e.g. on snow or ice).

I'd rather be driven by a good driver in a non-ESP equipped car than a poor driver with ESP. I'd also rather take it a bit easier myself than hope the technology will step in if I don't.

As far as I'm concerned, emergency manoeuvres are rare enough to be negligible and, even then, there's no guarantee ESP will save the day.

+1

[Gareth]

I would venture to suggest that an even better result would be obtained by further development of new driver training and testing regimes, accompanied by much more attention to the attitude and approach factors, rather than practical skills.

I'm not clear about what would be a practical approach to make this happen. The proportion of drivers who haven't passed the test and/or don't have any insurance is already too high, and I think many mooted changes to the training and testing procedure are likely to make this worse.

[TripleS]

Although I stand behind my arguments for the benefits of ESP I am totally against the Orwellian legislation that makes it compulsory for them to be fitted.

Indeed, and in spite of the claims from the manufacturers that it's for safety only, I'm sure there will be certain drivers out there who will want to "explore" it.

I don't see any evidence of people deliberately provoking esp. It can usually be turned off...

That's probably true, I can't envisage many people deliberately pushing their luck with the intention of forcing the ESP to intervene and try to save them, which it may or may not succeed in doing. What I do think is more likely is that drivers as a whole will get the notion that their cars are now so safe, that they reduce their own attention to the importance of exercising good levels of care and skill.

BTW, if ESP is considered such an important safety aid, why is there the option of turning it off? That seems odd to me, and not consistent with making its fitment compulsory.

[TripleS]

Why or indeed how you would go about provoking it without expecting to go beyond its safety net is beyond me.

I deliberately triggered mine when I first got the car to see what it would do. Went into a large wet roundabout with no one else around and dabbed the throttle too much. I thought it was important to know. I always leave it switched on as I was very impressed by my little play and also the various youtube videos demonstrating it. If Tiff Nedell supports ESP then that's good enough for me.

I think I'll keep away from Bristol in case we meet at that roundabout and your ESP fails.

[Silk]

Here are two of your quotes (in bold) on this forum, Silk, both in which you describe ESP being 'unnecessary' and 'irrelevant'.

'My current car has ESP as standard but I'd have saved the money if I'd had the option. It's completely unnecessary, IMO.'

'I'm sure there may be some evidence statistically that ESP mitigates the effects of bad driving when it comes to paying out on claims, but it's irrelevant if you don't crash.'

If it is 'unnecessary' for you, then are you claiming that you will never be involved in an emergency where ESP might be useful?

I'm not saying never. Just that, on balance, it's not enough of a risk to justify the extra expense.
I've never been in a situation where I've had to take the kind of action where ESP could provide assistance in my first million miles, so it's highly unlikely that it's going to happen in the second, or even third!

It's for the same reason that my house doesn't have a full hotel spec fire alarm and sprinkler system installed, although I do have two smoke alarms that I check regularly.

If it is 'irrelevant if you don't crash', how can you be so sure that you will never be involved in an accident? Furthermore, is it your view then, that ESP is only useful if you do crash? What about emergencies where ESP helps you with an avoidance maneuver and then you don't crash?

I believe the risk is small enough to be considered negligible and the potential benefit of ESP in real world driving is exaggerated.

[Silk]

Why or indeed how you would go about provoking it without expecting to go beyond its safety net is beyond me.

I deliberately triggered mine when I first got the car to see what it would do. Went into a large wet roundabout with no one else around and dabbed the throttle too much. I thought it was important to know. I always leave it switched on as I was very impressed by my little play and also the various youtube videos demonstrating it. If Tiff Nedell supports ESP then that's good enough for me.

I think I'll keep away from Bristol in case we meet at that roundabout and your ESP fails.

You will be banned as you have a child killing non-ESP equipped car.

[zadocbrown]

I'm not saying never. Just that, on balance, it's not enough of a risk to justify the extra expense.
I've never been in a situation where I've had to take the kind of action where ESP could provide assistance in my first million miles, so it's highly unlikely that it's going to happen in the second, or even third!

I'm not sure that argument is statistically valid...

Although I take your general point.

Personally I wouldn't be too bothered one way or the other about ESP, although as it becomes more widespread I imagine the cost is coming down to a point where it represents good value.

I wouldn't be so keen on doing without ABS though. Not for my daily drive anyway.

[zadocbrown]

BTW, if ESP is considered such an important safety aid, why is there the option of turning it off? That seems odd to me, and not consistent with making its fitment compulsory.

I understand some people like to turn it off on track (though I've not found it necessary myself).

Sometimes the traction control function is best turned off in the snow. On my car (I think) this also disengages ESP altogether (but not ABS).

[Gareth]

I wouldn't be so keen on doing without ABS though.

Say you were offered the chance of an extended spirited drive in a car that didn't have ABS fitted. Would you turn it down?

With all these driver aids there seems to be a certain lack of clarity in peoples' thinking. Many of us have done without them for many years, yet now we let our fears get the better of us, making us needlessly timid, saying that this driver aid or that is really important to have.

A couple of years ago I was given the opportunity to drive a very nice modern Jaguar. Hugely powerful, but the owner warned that the traction control sometimes stopped working. It was a week before Christmas and the roads were quite icy, making for interesting conditions. I was sharing the car with two others, and my turn was last.

Very shortly after I started driving the inevitable happened - the traction control light stayed on and the rear wheels started slipping at the lightest provocation. Boy, that was a heck of a lot of fun, modulating the power with the right foot. My co-drivers both said how they were glad they weren't driving at that point, but I think I very much had the best time of it.

OK, I know that traction control and ABS are different systems, but only the newest car we've owned has had ABS fitted. Our older rwd car doesn't, but that doesn't make it dangerous to drive, (unless one drives like a cock by repeatedly going too hot into hazards).

[TripleS]

I would venture to suggest that an even better result would be obtained by further development of new driver training and testing regimes, accompanied by much more attention to the attitude and approach factors, rather than practical skills.

I'm not clear about what would be a practical approach to make this happen. The proportion of drivers who haven't passed the test and/or don't have any insurance is already too high, and I think many mooted changes to the training and testing procedure are likely to make this worse.

Well as to the practical approach to make it happen, I'm not sure either. I believe people here are largely aware of the importance of attitude in so far as it affects our ability to remain safe, but is it widely appreciated outside these somewhat exclusive circles? I don't know, but I suspect it isn't.

I was wondering to what extent are efforts made to promote a good attitude in those who come new to driving. Do driving instructors talk to their pupils about this, or do examiners have anything to say on the subject when giving their verdict on test day? If nothing is done along these lines, perhaps it would be helpful to draw further attention to the attitude factor, rather than concentrating exclusively on establishing the ability to carry out the required car control functions and detailed practical elements and a few set piece manoeuvres.

Is it generally the case that new drivers are left with the belief that having passed the DSA test they have done all that is required of them? I hope not. What should be emphasised, both during the tuition periods and on test day, is that the passing of the test merely indicates that one is now at liberty to drive unaccompanied, and that we should henceforth be thoughtfully continuing the learning process, gaining experience and refining the skills in order that they may be deployed more consistently and reliably.

As for introducing measures that might lead to an increase in the numbers of unqualified/uninsured drivers, that would of course be bad news, but I don't see why that should happen. In any case that is a matter for policing and general monitoring of road user behaviour. I'm not sure that the sort of driver training and testing regime I would like to see need necessarily exclude many more would-be drivers, but it might help to produce better drivers.

To be honest I don't see any of this as being particularly onerous for new drivers, but I still have the uncomfortable feeling that the subject is not receiving sufficient attention, and it ought to be fairly easily to remedy this.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Grahar]

Quoting Silk:
'I'm not saying never. Just that, on balance, it's not enough of a risk to justify the extra expense.
I've never been in a situation where I've had to take the kind of action where ESP could provide assistance in my first million miles, so it's highly unlikely that it's going to happen in the second, or even third!'
and...
'It's for the same reason that my house doesn't have a full hotel spec fire alarm and sprinkler system installed, although I do have two smoke alarms that I check regularly.'

If it is 'irrelevant if you don't crash', how can you be so sure that you will never be involved in an accident? Furthermore, is it your view then, that ESP is only useful if you do crash? What about emergencies where ESP helps you with an avoidance maneuver and then you don't crash?

I believe the risk is small enough to be considered negligible and the potential benefit of ESP in real world driving is exaggerated.[/quote]


I would actually liken having a smoke detector to having a car with ESP (though admittedly you always have a choice as to whether it is fitted). It is inexpensive (I don't think it has put the price of new cars and considerably since it was first being fitted as standard), but could be invaluable in certain emergencies.

I accept that emergencies where it would be useful are rare events, but like a smoke detector, its low cost and potential benefits makes it worthwhile having.

That said, I have to be honest and say that if someone loaned me at tasty non ESP equipped car it wouldn't put me off driving it!

I haven't encountered an extreme scenario where it would definitely be useful in the 7 years I've been driving ESP equipped cars, but I don't rule such a event out nor begrudge it being fitted to my BMW.

[zadocbrown]

I wouldn't be so keen on doing without ABS though.

Say you were offered the chance of an extended spirited drive in a car that didn't have ABS fitted. Would you turn it down?

No, of course not. I'm not saying I would be afraid to drive without ABS.

I'm thinking of a (mostly hypothetical these days) situation where I might be buying a car with ABS on the options list. I would tend to think choosing not to have it would be a false economy.