Forums | MacLife

Yes I have noticed the the most SUV owners believe they own the road due to the size of their vehicle.  I used to own a SUV, but traded it in for the Mazda.  I like the little roadster a heck of lot better, until it snows.

I think the modern ABS system will stop faster than a non-ABS system for the average driver.  The whole point of ABS is to prevent the wheels from locking up; which increases stopping distance and minimizes control.

-mark

The real problem is that we don't really have drivers education in most parts. I actually did take a course, and drove an old Chevy for a semester, but it was optional. Even at that, it was more 'lets drive to the burger stand for lunch' - with the coach...

I think every driver should be required to take the same kind of training limo drivers or race drivers get. Basically, how to control a car in almost any situation. That wouldn't necessarily solve drunk or distracted driving, but it would definitely help with drivers who get in trouble because they don't know how to drive a car.

I ease up when the tires start squealing

The computers can be a help, even to skilled drivers. I wouldn't discount them too quickly. Traction control, for example, can help if you are on gravel roads. My in-laws, for example, have a steep gravel road, and I usually see the TCS system kick in twice going up.

ABS is also a life saver, especially if you have to stop fast in less than ideal conditions. Sure, you could pump the old system, but ABS can do it more quickly, and more reliably, than you can.

Just keep in the back of your mind what these systems are doing, and be prepared for if they fail.

Really? Like, available commercially? Who offered it first? If I was gonna take a wild guess, I'd say Citroen, but I'm probably wrong.

Tallgeese wrote:

Bren wrote:

Being able to come to a safe, short, controlled stop on a road that is wet with rain and slick with oil is a lot to give up because you don't like the shudder. Try getting up to speed sometime on a wet road, in an ABS-equipped vehicle, and then taking your hands off the wheel and abruptly mashing the brake pedal into the floor. If that doesn't sell you on ABS, nothing will.

No. I prefer to adapt my driving to road conditions so I don't need a computer to save my dumb ass.

Regarding this shudder: I drive a car with ABS, and I almost never experience any kind of shudder. Rest assured, my driving style does necessitate a lot of hard braking. If you have a car with ABS, and its brake pedal routinely shudders, maybe some adjustment is called for?

Not routinely, but every ABS car I've driven has done it with hard braking.

Orion wrote:

ABS only works when at least one tire is not locked up.  If you are on ice and jam on the brakes, you can lock up all 4 tires before the system has a chance to engage.  Trust me.  I have done it.  My 2005 Wrangler Rubicon doesn't have ABS.  That should be a death trap (short wheel base, no abs, high center of gravity, etc) but I feel more comfortable in that in bad weather than my Grand Cherokee with its Quadra Drive all time 4x4 system.  I'm with Tallgeese on this one.  Drive as the conditions permit, and you really don't have much of a need for all the extra safety systems.  I'd rather be in full control of my vehicle than having a computer decide that something needs to happen because of some arbitrary reading.  I want road feel, not cushy quiet cabins with all the bells and whistles.

O.K... I assuming the rotors are not warped, ABS has come a long way. First ABS systems had a pulse on the pedal like crazy, the system itself was a large heavy setup. In Newer cars the pulse is not as bad. When it comes to ice, your f***ed either way, but.... If you are panic braking and let up off the brakes when you feel the vibration or shudder, you kill the effectiveness of the anti lock braking system and you lengthen the braking distances. The tires need to roll to maintain grip. If in rain, snow and ice, if you didn't have ABS, if the brakes locked up, snow, ice, water builds up in the tire tread and it becomes a flat surface across the contact patch of the tire. With the reduction in friction and that flat contact patch off the road you go.

Newer cars have steering sensors so if you need to steer, it will release braking power to give grip to steering so you can maneuver around something. But again to maintain effectiveness of ABS in panic braking, steering or no steering the foot has to be 100% on the brake all the way from start to finish.

Unfortunately due to the lack of driver education and training, many people don't understand how ABS works or what it feels like. Many when feeling the pulsing or vibration though the pedal, foolishly lift off the brakes and for some it's the last mistake they ever make. Never manually pump ABS brakes yourself either, Apply only steady pressure continuously until you come to a complete stop.


So you can be like these guys and play bumper cars or learn a little more on how to drive on snow or ice.

radarman wrote:

The real problem is that we don't really have drivers education in most parts. I actually did take a course, and drove an old Chevy for a semester, but it was optional. Even at that, it was more 'lets drive to the burger stand for lunch' - with the coach...

I think every driver should be required to take the same kind of training limo drivers or race drivers get. Basically, how to control a car in almost any situation. That wouldn't necessarily solve drunk or distracted driving, but it would definitely help with drivers who get in trouble because they don't know how to drive a car.

Another cause of accidents - I sometimes stand at the corner and watch drivers.
Young drivers and any driver talking on a cell phone (blue tooth or not) will only briefly glance left when turning right on red, often not bringing the car to a complete stop.

Middle aged drivers who are not talking on a cell phone are more likely to come to a complete stop and more likely to give a decent glance left before they turn right.

I'm guessing that younger drivers haven't had enough close calls to have the importance of cautious driving sink in, and I'm guessing drivers on cell phones, even hands free, are too distracted by their conversation to bother with giving a decent glance.

avkills wrote:

Yeah but do they look to the right to see if any cyclists are coming? 

Frequently no.

Bren wrote:

Well at least there was a 442 option...

http://www.italianfoto.it/immagini/menu … %20f3q.jpg

Of course, I may be making your case for you.

That thing had at least a 400/4 barrel/posi rear end? I doubt it.

wellfleation wrote:

Bren wrote:

Well at least there was a 442 option...

http://www.italianfoto.it/immagini/menu … %20f3q.jpg

Of course, I may be making your case for you.

That thing had at least a 400/4 barrel/posi rear end? I doubt it.

From Wikipedia:

Another limited-edition 4-4-2 model was offered from 1978 through 1980. Engines varied from a base 3.8L V6 to a 305 4bbl. There was no 350 available to any 4-4-2 offered in 1978 or 1979. Oldsmobile 350 in³ V8. A special-edition Hurst/Olds was also offered in 1979.

The 1978-9 version of the 442 was an option package on the "Aeroback" Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon, which was the lower-trim version of the best-selling Cutlass model range. It was offered with all powertrains available, including the 231 c.i.d., 2V V6, the 260 c.i.d. 2V V8, and 305 c.i.d. 2V (1978) or 4V (1979) V8s. Transmissions offered were 3-spd automatic with all engines, 5 spd manual with the 260 V8 and a 4 spd Saginaw manual with all engines.

I'm surprised there wasn't a diesel option!

Mr. T wrote:

resedit wrote:

avkills wrote:

Yeah but do they look to the right to see if any cyclists are coming? 

Frequently no.

Cyclists should be riding on the right side of the road, anyway, hence they will be visible when glancing left.  Runners, on the other hand...

With right turn on red, cyclists aren't in that much danger - but what often happens (happened to me once) is a right turn across a bike lane when traffic is moving forward.

It's known as a "right hook".

I was just reading a review of the Mazdaspeed 3, and it said that thing weighs about 3200 pounds! It's a four cylinder hatchback, for cryin' out loud! How on Earth do they manage to make any four cylinder subcompact weigh that much!? To put that in perspective, my gas-guzzling '91 Z28 didn't weigh much more than 3400 pounds. Something's very wrong when any four cylinder weighs almost as much as a Camaro.