Velvet wrote:

You very carefully say 'its not there to
stop you quicker', I say in a given circumstance it will. We aren't
talking about the same thing, and I know it, and I think you know it
too.

Possibly. I guess it's like the difference between "my helmet saved my
life" and "helmets save lives".

I dislike generalisations, and the 'ABS wont make you stop faster' is
just such a generalisation. It's become abundantly clear you're only
interested in the generalisation though.

I am indeed. The generalisation is what people will be thinking about as
they consume the safety benefit of ABS as a performance benefit. "I can
stop quicker thanks to ABS" therefore "I don't need to leave as much space".

I'll continue to prefer a car with ABS. [...]
*I'd* rather have something that increases the safety. If you don't
mind.

I am extremely unlikely ever to buy another car without ABS. I do not
dispute that it improves my safety should an emergency situation is reached,
by allowing control under braking and by compensating for my indifferent
braking technique. Overall, the evidence is that I will subconsciously undo
that safety benefit by worse driving, but that's risk compensation for you.

Lucky you. Not having managed to get the ABS to even cut in on a
dry road, it doesn't do that for me.

I've explained it doesn't HAVE to cut in on a dry road to reduce my
stopping distance, please see above and try to understand, I'm
explaining it as clearly as I can!

Yes, you've given an example of compensating behaviour. I don't dispute it.
But it hasn't changed the capabiliites of the car, which is my point.

Like the two old women exchanging words across the Shambles, we are arguing
from different premises.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk