Stability control may save lives, but it won't fix the problem.

In an effort to make driving safer, the NHTSA has suggested that stability control be a mandatory part of all new cars and trucks. They cite the reduction in single car accidents and rollovers based on 10 years worth of data. While I agree that stability control systems (SCS) are a great feature and can help folks avoid an accident, I stop short of calling for a mandatory requirement. The main drawback to SCS is the added complexity of the system that's required. The primary monitoring network this system are wheel speed sensors located on all four wheels, sometimes referred to as the ABS sensors. Wheel speed sensors monitor how fast each wheel is turning, and can thus figure out if one wheel is slipping, or locking up under hard braking.

The problem with SCS and ABS is that it requires all four sensors to function properly for the system to be effective. If there is a problem the system drops back into an unmanaged mode that causes the brakes to act like they would in a car without ABS. Likewise, traction control and SCS won't function either. All of this can lead to a false sense of security for the driver as they'll believe they can drive the car as hard and as fast as possible and nothing bad will happen to them because the computer will rein them back in. This can be especially dangerous because it allows drivers to get into the bad habit of pushing the car too hard.

On balance if you overdrive a SCS monitored car under normal conditions you'll probably never know the difference. However if inclement weather ever becomes a factor the effectiveness of SCS is greatly reduced. While the system functions perfectly fine under normal rainy conditions, it doesn't do as well in monsoon conditions. An SCS system WILL NOT keep your car from hydroplaning. Furthermore, in icy conditions SCS is near useless as the computer will struggle to find mechanical grip that doesn't exist. In these situations pushing a car too hard will often result in an accident or worse.

The problem is not that the average human is a better driver than the computer, but that a human comes to rely on an automated system to do something that it's not designed for. Because the system makes you feel safer, humans have a bad habit of pushing it just a little bit harder. The end result is a more reckless driver who falsely believes that the computer will save his bacon if the car get's squirrelly. The point is that because of human nature I don't expect SCS to save the "10,000 lives per year" that the NHTSA predicts.

Instead of trying to protect drivers from themselves and their bad driving habits, I think the NHTSA needs to focus on something that is sorely lacking in our country: more in depth driver training. The average driver has probably had around 6 hours of formal training on how to drive a car. I can remember from when I took drivers ED, there was little to no coverage of emergency situations. Heck, they didn't even teach us how to change a flat tire. Everything we learned after that we were expected to learn while driving on the road either under the watchful eye of our parents or on our own. The problem with emergency situations is that they don't happen that often and when they do you usually have a split second to make a decision.

To further compound the issue, today's drivers are distracted by cell phones, GPS Navigation systems and thundering stereo systems and not concentrating on the task of driving. No SCS package, no matter how advanced, is going to keep an inattentive driver from having an accident. When combined with the increased performance capabilities of today's cars this can become a lethal combination. If the NHTSA wants to reduce accidents they should invent a system that forces a distracted driver to slow down and immediately turns on a set of flashing lights. Not only would it instantly alert other drivers, but it could possibly cast enough shame on the perpetrator that they'd actually hang up and drive! Either way I think it'd be a vast safety improvement.