Originally Posted by
sudo bike
I'd rather not ignore pertinent data that has been studied to some extent.
No one is asking you to ignore it. Just don't except it as "holy writ". That is, understand the problems and deficiencies of it (not understanding that is careless).
What is interesting is that you have no problem ignoring data. Why do you ignore this "pertinent data" about ABS? If risk compensation was a general issue with ABS, then you would not see these sorts of results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system
A 2003 Australian study by Monash University Accident Research Centre found that ABS:[1]
Reduced the risk of multiple vehicle crashes by 18 percent,
Reduced the risk of run-off-road crashes by 35 percent.
================
Originally Posted by
sudo bike
Yes, I read that one (of three), and it seemed perfectly reasonable. Firstly, there isn't much skill needed with ABS. In fact, people complain it's led to skillful braking becoming a lost art; people just slam on the brakes because that generally works. You don't think a car being advertised as having a ABS braking safety system increases the perception of safety?
The problem some people have with ABS is that they habituated the "old" braking skills which make ABS less effective (this issue should have declined over time as ABS became standard. And ABS doesn't work better in slippery conditions anyway.
Cab drivers should have lots of experience and be able to avoid accidents by reacting/anticipating better than less-experienced drivers. The accidents they get into may be ones that can't be react-to or anticipated (pure surprises). If that's the case (I don't know), ABS would not reduce the number of accidents.