Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 167–173

Effects of electronic stability control (ESC) on accidents:

A review of empirical evidence
Alena Erke ∗
Institute of Transport Economics, Department of passenger transport, Grensesvingen 7, 0602 Oslo, Norway
Received 7 October 2006; received in revised form 22 March 2007; accepted 5 May 2007

Abstract
This study summarizes evidence from empirical studies on the effects of electronic stability control (ESC) on accidents in a meta-analysis.
Large reductions of single vehicle accidents have been found (−49%; 95% confidence interval: [−55%; −42%]), and smaller but still significant
reductions of head-on collisions (−13%; 95% confidence interval: [−17%; −8%]). Multi-vehicle fatal accidents are also significantly reduced
(−32%; 95% confidence interval: [−43%; −20%]). The effects can be explained with the potential of ESC to improve driving dynamics and
to reduce the probability of loss of control. However, there are significant amounts of heterogeneity in the results, especially for single vehicle
accidents, and a sensitivity analysis shows that the results for single vehicle accidents are likely to be affected by publication bias. The results for
single vehicle accidents are in excess of what might be expected based on studies that have estimated the total amount of accidents that may be
affected by ESC. Consequently, the proportions of accidents that can be avoided by ESC is assumed to be somewhat smaller than suggested by
most empirical studies. Properties of the vehicles, time trends, and driver behaviour may have contributed to the large empirical effects.
© 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Electronic stability control; ESC; Accident; Meta-analysis; Single vehicle accident; Head-on collision

1. Introduction
The objective of this study is to summarize empirical evi-
dence of the effects of electronic stability control (ESC) on
accidents by reviewing studies that have estimated proportions
of different types of accidents that may be affected by ESC, and
by calculating summary effects from studies that have inves-
tigated empirical effects of ESC on accidents by means of
meta-analysis. The results are compared in order to assess the
size of the effects and to provide an indication of the presence
of factors that may affect the size of the effects.
Electronic stability control is an active safety device for motor
vehicles which aims at improving driving dynamics and at pre-
venting accidents which result from loss of control. There exists
a large variety of ESC systems. They have in common that
they enhance the controllability of vehicles and that they can
prevent skidding and loss of control in cases of oversteering
or understeering. These are movements of the vehicle which
go beyond the steering input by the driver (oversteering) or
∗ Tel.: +47 22573863.
E-mail address: Alena.Erke@toi.no.
where the vehicle does not wholly follow the drivers steering
input (understeering). Both may be caused by too high speed in
curves, collision avoidance manoeuvres, low friction conditions,
or combinations of these (Sferco et al., 2001). ESC systems dif-
fer with respect to how they regulate driving parameters (yaw
characteristics, and sideslip), how they counteract deviations
(e.g. by braking individual wheels and reducing engine power),
and in what way drivers take notice of the activities of the
systems (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 2005). ESC
cannot overrun physics, and may not always prevent the vehi-
cle from sliding or spinning (Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, 2005).
ESC was first introduced as optional safety equipment in
passenger cars on the European market in 1995. Its public-
ity increased in 1997 after an event with a rollover of a new
vehicle model in a double lane change manoeuvre on a driv-
ing course (“moose-test”). The proportion of new cars that are
equipped with ESC increased steadily. In 1995, the proportion
of new cars equipped with ESC was only 5% (in Germany);
in 2004, the proportion was 36% in Europe, and much higher
in some European countries, e.g. 67% in Germany (Deutscher
Verkehrssicherheitsrat, 2006), and 70% in Sweden (according
to lists published by the Swedish insurance company Folksam).

0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.05.002
168 A. Erke / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 167–173
The proportion of all vehicles that are equipped with ESC in
Europe has been estimated by the European Commission (2005)
to be 9% in 2005, and is predicted to reach 50% by 2025 (if no
legal requirements for ESC are introduced).
In recent years, the increase in the number of vehicles for
which ESC is available seems to have slowed down, but the
proportion of vehicles for which ESC is standard equipment
(instead of optional equipment) is still increasing according to
lists published by the US-government (www.safercar.dot.gov).
The proportion of new sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with
ESC is increasing faster than the proportion of cars (Farmer,
2006). In 2004, nearly 70% of all new SUVs on the US-
market have been equipped with ESC (Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association, 2006). The proportion of smaller
cars that are equipped with ESC is much lower, and ESC
is mostly only optional, not standard equipment (Deutscher
Verkehrssicherheitsrat, 2006). The costs for the installation of
ESC depend on the standard of the technical equipment of a
car (e.g. antilock brakes, antislip regulation, brake assistant).
Estimations of costs for the installation of ESC as standard
equipment vary therefore widely, between ca. $100 and $800 per
vehicle (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2006; NHTSA,
2006), or between D 150 and D 500 per vehicle (European
Commission, 2005). ESC is not mandatory in any European
country, but recommended by the European new car assessment
programme (EuroNCAP). In the US there are plans to make ESC
mandatory from 2011.
2. Potential effects of ESC on accidents
ESC aims at reducing the probability of loss of control. Loss
of control often results in accidents with severe consequences
(Langwieder et al., 2003; Unselt et al., 2004): road departure,
collisions with objects or vehicles, or turnover. These collisions
are relatively likely to be side collisions, and/or collisions with
oncoming traffic. Side collisions usually have severe conse-
quences because vehicles provide only little protection. Head-on
collisions often involve high (relative) speed. Accidents may not
always be avoided, but the severity may be reduced, e.g. when
a side collision is replaced by a front collision, when a colli-
Table 1
Proportions of accidents in which contributing factors may be affected by ESC
Study Accident contributing factor
Campbell et al. (2003) Skidding
Insurance Institute for ESC-relevant
Highway Safety (2005)
Langwieder et al. (2003) Skidding
Sferco et al. (2001) Loss of control, ESC-relevant
Unselt et al. (2004) Loss of control
Zobel et al. (2000) Skidding
Summary ESC-relevant
sion with oncoming traffic is replaced by road departure, and
when impact speed is reduced. Collisions in junctions, over-
taking accidents, and rear-end collisions are less likely to be
prevented by ESC. Accidents which involve loss of control, but
in which the driver was driving extremely fast, very sleepy, or
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, are also less
likely to be affected by ESC.Proportions of different types of
accidents that might be affected by ESC have been estimated in
several studies based on accident reports and in-depth accident
analyses. These studies are summarized in Table 1 in order to
provide a basis of comparison for results from empirical acci-
dent studies that are presented in the next section. The summary
of the results in Table 1 gives a rough estimate of the magnitude
of the potential effects. Accidents are usually not classified in
official accident statistics according to whether or not skidding
or loss of control has been a contributing factor. The study of
Campbell et al. (2003) is based on a total of ca. 73,000 acci-
dents from two US databases. Accidents of all severities are
included in their analysis. In about half of all single vehicle off-
road accidents, skidding has been a major contributing factor,
and in about half of these accidents speeding (driving above
the speed limit) has been an additional contributing factor. The
study of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2005) has
estimated the proportions of different types of accidents that
may be prevented by ESC. Langwieder et al. (2003) have ana-
lyzed reports of ca. 1500 injury accidents in Germany in order
to estimate the proportions of accidents which involved skid-
ding. Sferco et al. (2001) have investigated ca. 2700 accidents
in the European accident causation survey (EACS, based on data
from five European countries). They have estimated quite large
amounts of accidents which involve loss of control and which
may be affected by ESC. The proportion of accidents which
actually may be avoided by ESC is assumed to be much smaller.
The proportion of accidents which would definitely have been
avoided is estimated to be 2% for injury accidents, and 3% for
fatal accidents. The proportion of accidents which would proba-
bly have been avoided is estimated to be 9% for injury accidents,
and 18% for fatal accidents. Unselt et al. (2004) have analysed
data from a representative sample of over two million accidents
in Germany in 2002 and estimated how many accidents involved
Proportion of accidents involving contributing factor (%)
Single vehicle Multi-vehicle All
50 (single vehicle off-road) 1 (rear-end)
8 (lane change)
56 17 34
39 12
42 (injury accident)
67 (fatal accident)
21 (injury accident)
43 (fatal accident)
44 (very severe injury accident)
40–50 10 20–40
 A. Erke / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 167–173 169

loss of control. Zobel et al. (2000) have analyzed 10,000 acci-
dents in the database of the Hannover Medical School (MHH).
They have estimated the proportions of accidents with at least
one very severely injured (MAIS 5+) that involved skidding.
According to Zobel et al. (2000), the probability of at least one
very severely injured (MAIS 5+) in accidents, which without
ESC would be side collisions, would be reduced by 50% if all
vehicles were equipped with ESC. The proportion is larger in
curves (53%) that in straight sections (40%).
The results show quite consistently large proportions of sin-
gle vehicle accidents which involve contributing factors that may
be affected by ESC, and smaller proportions for multi-vehicle
accidents. The proportions are consistently larger for fatal acci-
dents than for injury accidents. These results do not take into
account potential effects on driver behaviour.
3. Meta-analysis
3.1. Studies included in the meta-analysis
The proportions of different types of accidents that are pre-
vented by ESC are examined in a meta-analysis. It includes
studies of accident involvement of vehicles with and without
ESC. In order to identify studies, a computer search was made of
the Silverplatter TRANSPORT literature database which com-
bines different international transport related databases. Studies
were also searched on the Internet. Studies were retrieved when
Study acc. with ESC/Study acc. without ESC
Estimate of effect =
Control acc. with ESC/Control acc. without ESC
dard equipment in these cars. In two of these studies (Aga and
Okada, 2003; Farmer, 2006) involvement in different types of
accidents has been compared between vehicles with and without
ESC. Bahouth (2005) has additionally included involvement in
accidents that are not assumed to be affected by ESC as a con-
trol. Case-control studies have compared accident involvement
between different types of vehicles with and without ESC. All
of these studies have included involvement in accidents that are
not assumed to be affected by ESC as a control. The types of
accidents that have been used as controls are shown in Table 2.
There are large differences between the studies as regards the
types of accidents that are assumed not to be affected by ESC.
The range is from all multi-vehicle accidents (Dang, 2004) to
selected types of accidents in the other case-control studies
and in the study of Bahouth (2005). The accidents that are not
assumed to be sensitive to ESC in the study of Kreiss et al. (2006)
are mainly accidents involving turning or crossing roads and
accidents involving stationary vehicles. Page and Cuny (2006)
include all accidents not involving loss of control or guidance
problems in the group of non-ESC sensitive accidents.
3.2. Statistical analysis in meta-analysis
The results of the studies listed in Table 2 are combined by
means of the log-odds method of meta-analysis (Christensen,
2003; Elvik, 2005; Fleiss, 1981). Estimates of effect were com-
puted as odds ratios, based on the numbers of accidents reported
in the studies (Formula (1)).
(1)

they were, based on title and abstract, likely to be empirical stud-
ies and to have investigated effects on accidents. Studies were
included in the meta-analysis if they gave sufficient information
to compute estimates of effect, based on numbers of accidents.
Studies that have estimated how likely certain types of accidents
are to be avoided or affected by ESC were not included in the
meta-analysis.
Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. They
are listed alphabetically in Table 2. Three of the studies are
before-and-after studies, five of them are case-control studies.
Before-and-after studies have investigated accident involvement
of one or more types of cars before and after ESC became stan-
Study accidents are accidents for which the effect of ESC is
estimated, e.g. single vehicle accidents. In most studies, types
of accidents that are not assumed to be affected by ESC were
used as control.
The study of Aga and Okada (2003) has used the number of
cars as a denominator. The study of Farmer (2006) has used the
accident involvement of different types of vehicles as a control
group.
For combining estimates of effects from different studies,
each estimate is assigned a statistical weight and the weighted
mean of the estimates is computed. The statistical weight
assigned to each estimate of the effect is inversely proportional to

Table 2
Evaluation studies included in the meta-analysis
Authors (year) Country Number of estimates Statistical weighta Study design Control

Aga and Okada (2003) Japan 4 139.1 Before–after Numbers of cars

Bahouth (2005) USA 14 1910.2 Before–after ESP vehicle hit from rear
Dang (2004) USA 4 589.9 Case-control Multi-vehicle collisions
Farmer (2006) USA 6 7985.2 Before–after Non-ESC vehicles
Kreiss et al. (2006) Germany 1 1318.3 Case-control Accidents not sensitive to ESC
Lie et al. (2004) Sweden 1 50.3 Case-control Rear-end collisions on dry roads
Page and Cuny (2006) France 1 14.6 Case-control Accidents not sensitive to ESC
Thomas (2006) UK 7 7378.5 Case-control Collisions not involving forward
movement of the vehicle
a Sum of statistical weights in fixed effects models of meta-analysis (only effects that are included in the meta-analysis).
170 A. Erke / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 167–173
the variance. How the statistical weights are computed depends
on the amount of heterogeneity in the estimates of effect. If
there is only a small amount of heterogeneity, a fixed effects
(FE) model of meta-analysis can be applied, in which variance
is assumed to arise from random variation of the estimates of
effect around one “fixed” mean effect. In the FE model, the
statistical weights are computed according to Formula (2).
1
FE weight = 
( 1/Number of accidents)
If there is heterogeneity in the estimates of effect, a ran-
dom effects (RE) model of meta-analysis is applied. In the RE
model, the variance of the estimates of effect is assumed to arise
from two sources. One source of variance is random variation
around the mean effect (as in the FE model). The mean effect
sizes are additionally assumed to vary between studies. When
there is heterogeneity, RE models yield slightly different esti-
mates of effect, and larger confidence intervals than FE models.
Statistical weights in the RE model are computed according to
Christensen (2003) as a function of the logarithm of the effects
and weights in a FE model, and Cochran’s Q statistic (Formula
(3)). The Cochran’s Q statistic is used to test heterogeneity. It
is a function of the weighted squared differences between study
effect estimates and the fixed effects summary effect. Under the
assumption of no heterogeneity, it follows a Chi-square distribu-
tion where the number of the degrees of freedom is the number
of studies minus one.
1 The estimates of effect for different types of accidents and
RE weight =
(1/FE weight + (Q − df)/C)
where Q refers to the Cochran’s Q statistic, df is the degrees of
freedom of Q, and C is computed as shown in Formula (4).
  was also reduced significantly. The effects on fatal accidents are
 Ln(FE effect) ∗ FE weight)2
C= FE weight −  larger than the effects on injury accidents for head-on and for
FE weight
In order to examine if a RE model is more adequate, it is
tested if there is a significant amount of heterogeneity applying
Cochran’s Q-test described in Christensen (2003). If Q is sta-
tistically significant, a RE model should be applied. This test is
quite weak (i.e. the probability of detecting heterogeneity when
there is heterogeneity is not very high), and the RE will not
be inappropriate, but approaching the FE model when there is
Table 3
Test for heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q-test)
Accident severity Type of accident
Injury/unspecified accidents Single vehicle
Injury/unspecified accidents Loss of control
Injury Rollover accidents
Injury/unspecified accidents Head on
Injury/unspecified accidents Multi-vehicle
Injury accidents Single vehicle
Fatal accidents Single vehicle
Injury accidents Multi-vehicle
Fatal accidents Multi-vehicle
low heterogeneity (Christensen, 2003). It is hypothesized that
the effects of ESC are different for different types of accidents
(single vehicle, multi-vehicle), and for different accident sever-
ities (injury accidents, fatal accidents). Therefore, the test for
heterogeneity is performed within each group of different acci-
dents and accident severities where the number of estimates of
effect is larger than one. The results of the heterogeneity test are
summarized in Table 3 for all groups of effect sizes (types of
(2) accidents, severities) where more than one effect size is avail-
able. There are significant amounts of heterogeneity within the
effect sizes for single vehicle accidents. For head-on collisions
and rollover accidents, the results are not very far from being
significant.
Summary estimates are computed with the RE model for all
groups of accidents where more than one effect size is avail-
able. Each summary estimate is computed by summing up all
products of the logarithms of the estimates of effects and the
corresponding RE weights, and dividing this sum by the sum
of all RE weights. The result is then rescaled from the loga-
rithmic scale in order to obtain the combined estimate of effect
in terms of odds ratios. This estimate indicates the proportion
of accidents that are not prevented by ESC. If the estimate is
for example 0.87, the reduction in the number of accidents in
vehicles with ESC is 13% ([1–0.87] * 100% = 13%).
3.3. Results of meta-analysis
(3) different levels of accident severity are summarized in Table 4.
Additionally, 95% confidence intervals are shown.
Large reductions were found for single vehicle, loss of con-
trol and rollover accidents. The number of head-on collisions
all multi-vehicle accidents. For single vehicle accidents there is
(4) no significant difference.
A combined effect for all types of accidents was not com-
puted. Most studies have focused on specific types of accidents;
the composition of types of accidents would therefore not be
representative in a combined effect.
Three of the studies have investigated effects of ESC under
different driving conditions (Farmer, 2006; Kreiss et al., 2006;
Lie et al., 2004). In all studies, the largest effects have been
found on icy or snowy roads, and the smallest effects on dry
df Cochran’s Q p
13 82.939 <.000
2 57.621 <.000
2 3.892 .143
8 11.530 .183
3 0.721 .868
1 8.575 .003
4 8.379 .079
1 0.050 .823
1 0.786 .375
 A. Erke / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 167–173 171

Table 4
Estimated reductions of accidents for vehicles equipped with ESC (RE models)
Change of number of accidents (%)

Accident severity Type of accidents Best estimate 95% confidence interval

Injury/unspecified accidents Single vehicle −49 (−55; −42)

Injury/unspecified accidents Loss of Control −41 (−62; −7)
Injury accidents Rollover −69 (−82; −45)
Injury accidents All except for rear-end collisionsa −22 (−41; +3)
Injury/unspecified accidents Head on −13 (−17; −8)
Injury/unspecified accidents Side collisionsa −7 (−14; 0)
Injury/unspecified accidents Multi-vehiclea +3 (+1; +5)
Injury accidents Single vehicle −46 (−64; −18)
Fatal accidents Single vehicle −49 (−62; −33)
Injury accidents Head ona −10 (−15; −5)
Fatal accidents Head ona −79 (−97; +61)
Injury accidents Multi-vehicle +2 (+1; +3)
Fatal accidents Multi-vehicle −32 (−43; −20)
a Fixed effects model (too few effect sizes for random effects).

roads. Meta-effects could not be computed because all studies
have investigated different types of accidents.
3.4. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analyses are conducted to test the robustness of the
results. Sensitivity analysis focuses on publication bias, outlier
bias, effects of statistical weighting, and study design.
are shown as vertical lines. For other types of accidents, there
were too few estimates of effect to create a funnel diagram.
In accordance with the results of the test for heterogeneity,
there is large variance in the estimates of effects for single vehi-
cle accidents in Fig. 1, and the effects do not seem to cluster
around one common value. The distribution is somewhat asym-
metrical. Large negative effect sizes (large accident reductions)

3.4.1. Publication bias

Publication bias exists when studies that do not find signif-
icant effects in the expected direction are not published. When
there is publication bias, the largest effects are found in small
studies, because effects have to be larger in smaller studies in
order to become significant. When there is no publication bias,
studies which do not yield significant results in the expected
direction are also published, and the effects will be uncorre-
lated with study size. More extreme values will be still more
frequent in smaller studies. A simple method to test for publi-
cation bias is to investigate the relationship between the effect
sizes and the weights of the corresponding studies in funnel
plots (Christensen, 2003). A funnel plot is a scatter diagram
Fig. 1. Funnel plot for single vehicle accidents (all severities).
with the logarithm of the effect sizes (Ln(effect)) on the x-axis,
and the statistical weights on the y-axis. Statistical weights are
computed with the FE model. Logarithms of effect sizes are
used instead of effect sizes because the weights refer to the log-
arithm of the effects. A “funnel” is drawn around the average
Ln(effect). Because FE statistical weights are displayed on the
y-axis, Ln(effects) are also computed with the FE model, and
therefore slightly different from the logarithms of the effect size
shown in Table 4. Without publication bias, the Ln(effects) are
expected to be assembled symmetrically in the shape of a fun-
nel around the average, where the largest studies are grouped
around the average effect. Funnel plots are shown in Fig. 1 for
single vehicle accidents and in Fig. 2 for head-on collisions.
Fatal accidents are shown as circles in both figures. The sum-
mary estimates in the FE models for injury/unspecified accidents Fig. 2. Funnel plot for head-on collisions (all severities).
172 A. Erke / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 167–173
have been found in smaller studies. This is to be expected when
there is publication bias. A possible alternative explanation is
that studies in which the accident severity is unspecified include
property damage accidents as well as injury accidents. For prop-
erty damage accidents no large effects are expected, and they are
more frequent (produce larger statistical weights) than injury
accidents or fatal accidents. For fatal single accidents there are
only four effect sizes, all of which are far away from the sum-
mary estimate. The effects of ESC on head-on collisions are
quite symmetrically distributed around the summary estimate.
They do not seem to be affected by publication bias. For fatal
head-on collisions there is only one effect size.
3.4.2. Outlier bias
The effects of single estimates on the summary estimates
(outlier bias) are investigated by omitting each of the single
estimates from the calculation of the summary estimates, one at
a time. Most of these new summary scores cluster closely around
the original summary scores, i.e. within the 95% confidence
interval and not more than 2% above or below. Single vehicle
accidents are an exception. The new summary scores for injury
accidents range from −18 to −46%. The new summary scores
for fatal single vehicle accidents range from −43 to −52%.
3.4.3. Influence of statistical weighting
In order to test the influence of the statistical weighting of
the estimates of effect, all summary effects were compared to
the arithmetic means of the single effect sizes (for all summary
effects which are based on more than one individual effect size).
No significant differences between the RE summary effects and
the arithmetic means have been found for any of the accident
types in the meta-analysis.
3.4.4. Effects of study design
Effects of study design on the estimates of effect are exam-
ined by comparing results between before-and-after studies and
case-control studies. In before-and-after studies the types of cars
with and without ESC are identical, but ESC is not the only
change that has been made to the vehicles as ESC became stan-
dard equipment. In case-control studies there are different types
of cars with and without ESC. The vehicles have been matched
with respect to properties that are relevant for active and passive
safety, which are not controlled for in before-and-after studies.
Effects of time trends can be assumed to be present in before-
and-after studies, but not in case-control studies. Vehicle age has
been controlled for in most studies. A comparison can be made
for single vehicle accidents. The estimates of effect for injury
and unspecified accidents (RE model) are very similar for the
two types of study design (−46% in the before-and-after studies,
−41% in the case-control studies). For fatal single vehicle acci-
dents the effect is −54% in before-and-after studies and −40%
in the case-control studies. This might indicate an effect of study
design. However, none of the differences is significant.
3.4.5. Summary of the sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis shows that the effects of ESC on
single vehicle accidents are likely to be influenced by publica-
tion bias. The effects on fatal single vehicle accidents are also
influenced by outlier bias. Actually, each of the four estimates
might be regarded as an outlier. Additionally, there may be an
effect of study design. These results are however inconclusive.
These results suggest that the effect on single vehicle accidents
is likely to be smaller than suggested by most accident studies.
No conclusions at all can be drawn from the results for fatal sin-
gle vehicle accidents. It is also likely that there are factors that
affect the effects of ESC that can not be investigated, based on
the present studies.
The effects of ESC on head-on collisions are more consistent.
They show no evidence of publication bias, outlier bias, or
influence of statistical weighting. A possible explanation is that
most studies focus mainly on single vehicle accidents, and that
effects on head-on collisions are less susceptible to publication
bias.
4. Summary and conclusions
A review of studies that have estimated potential effects of
ESC on accidents has been conducted and results of empirical
studies of the effects of ESC on accidents have been summa-
rized by means of meta-analysis. The results show a considerable
potential of ESC to reduce the number of accidents, especially
single vehicle and rollover accidents, head-on collisions, and
multi-vehicle fatal accidents.
The meta-analysis shows large effects on single vehicle acci-
dents, and a still larger effect on rollover accidents. These effects
can be explained in terms of the large proportions of these types
of accidents that involve loss of control. Among head-on col-
lisions, the proportion that involves loss of control is lower.
Accordingly, the reduction of head-on collisions is smaller than
the reduction of single vehicle accidents. For all types of multi-
vehicle accidents, a significant decrease has been found for
fatal accidents only. This is not surprising because the pro-
portion of multi-vehicle accidents that involve loss of control
and that might be affected by ESC is mainly limited to head-
on collisions, and these represent only a small proportion of
all multi-vehicle accidents. The larger reductions of fatal head-
on and multi-vehicle accidents can be attributed to the severe
consequences that accidents involving loss of control usually
have.
So far, the meta-analysis confirms the results of the studies
that have estimated potential accident reductions. However, a
closer look at the results casts some doubt on the magnitude
of the effects on single vehicle accidents. There is large varia-
tion in the results, the results change significantly when single
estimates are omitted from the analysis, and they are likely to
be affected by publication bias. In contrast to the results of
the studies that have estimated potential effects of ESC and
in contrast to the results of the meta-analysis for head-on and
all multi-vehicle collisions, the effect on single vehicle injury
accidents is nearly as large as the effect on fatal single vehicle
accidents. Additionally, the reductions of the number of single
vehicle accidents that have been found in the meta-analysis are
almost the same as the estimated proportions of accidents that
might be affected by ESC. It seems unrealistic to assume that all
 A. Erke / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 167–173
accidents which theoretically might be affected actually will be
prevented.
Study design (before-and-after versus case-control) may have
affected the estimated effects. Case-control studies yield smaller
effects than before-and-after studies, where more potential con-
founding factors are present. However, the difference is not
significant. Other methodological aspects may have contributed
to the relatively large effects. These include the types of con-
trol accidents in case-control studies, the (lack of) control for
properties of the vehicles in the study or for time trends. The
studies of Dang (2004) and Farmer (2006) have found much
larger effects on accidents with SUV than with passenger cars.
Differences may also be found between other types of vehicles,
depending on weight, centre of gravity, and driving dynamics.
As ESC is mostly standard equipment in higher-class cars, the
results may not be transferable to lighter vehicles. Time trends
which may have contributed to overestimated effects may arise
from improvements of vehicles (e.g. side-airbags) or infrastruc-
ture (e.g. improvements of road curvature and speed reductions
in curves) that aim at reducing the same type of accidents or
accident consequences as ESC. Due to the small number of stud-
ies, and partly due to lack of information in the studies, these
aspects could not be tested systematically. Three of the studies
in the meta-analysis have found different effects on dry, wet and
icy roads.
The results may additionally be affected by differences
between drivers buying cars with and without ESC. Drivers buy-
ing cars with ESC may set a higher value on safety, or they may
choose an ESC-car in order to be able to drive faster. ESC may
also affect driver behaviour, depending on whether or not the
driver knows that the vehicle is equipped with ESC and how
ESC works, whether the driver notices when ESC is getting
active, and how the activity of ESC is perceived (e.g. as “danger”
versus “fun”). Effects on driver behaviour may reduce or neu-
tralize the positive effect of ESC on driving dynamics if drivers
have too much trust in the system and drive faster, or if they
neglect shifting out worn tyres. On the other hand, ESC may be
informative, warning drivers about slippery driving conditions,
and thus contributing to safer driver behaviour. These effects
may be different for different drivers. In summary, drivers of
cars that are equipped with ESC may drive more riskily or less
riskily than drivers of cars without ESC. None of the studies has
investigated effects on driver behaviour. A comparison of the
estimated proportions of accidents that may be affected by ESC
and the results of the meta-analysis of accident studies does not
give any clear answer. If ESC were leading to more careful driver
behaviour, this might partly explain the large empirical effects
on single vehicle accidents. The larger effects of ESC that have
been found under slippery driving conditions also suggests that
drivers do not (over-)compensate the effects of ESC on driving
dynamics by more risky driving behaviour. The small but signif-
icant increase of multi-vehicle accidents suggests the contrary
effect. More research is needed to investigate the size of the
effects and the sources of the heterogeneity in the effects. The
aim should be an improved system design of ESC which avoids
negative behaviour adaptation effects. More knowledge on the
size of the effects is needed to support increased implementation
173
of ESC (e.g. by benefit-cost analysis), and as ESC is becoming
more common, its effects should be taken into account in studies
of other safety measures which aim at reducing the same types
of accidents.
References
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 2005. Preliminary results of ESC per-
formance metric evaluations. Presentation from the meeting of the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers, June 23, 2005.
Aga, M., Okada, A., 2003. Analysis of vehicle stability control\s effectiveness
from accident data. ESV paper 541.18th ESV Conference. Nagoya.
Bahouth, G., 2005. Real world crash evaluation of vehicle stability control (VSC)
technology, 49th Annual Proceedings Association for the Advancement of
Automotive Medicine, September 12–14.
Campbell, B.N., Smith, J.D., Najm, W.G., 2003. Examining of crash contributing
factors using national crash databases. NHTSA report DOT-VNTSC-
NHTSA-02–07.
Christensen, P., 2003. Topics in meta-analysis. Report 692/2003. Oslo: Institute
of Transport Economics.
Dang, J.N., 2004. Preliminary results analysing the effectiveness of electronic
stability control systems. NHTSA, DOT HS 809 790.
Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat, 2006. Sicherheitstechnik ESP: Kleinwagen
dem Schleudern weiterhin ausgesetzt (Safety equipment ESP: Small vehicles
still prone to skidding). DVR Report 728/30.
Elvik, R., 2005. Introductory guide to systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
Transportation Research Record 1908, 230–235.
European Commission, 2005. Cost-benefit assessment and prioritisation of vehi-
cle safety technologies. European Commission Directorate General Energy
and Transport, Interim report October 2005.
Farmer, C.M., 2006. Effects of electronic stability control: An update. Traffic
Injury Prevention 7, 319–324.
Fleiss, J.L., 1981. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, New
York.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2005. Electronic Stability Control. Status
Report, 4(1), 2–4.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2006. Electronic Stability Control. Status
Report 41(5), 2–3.
Kreiss, J.-P., Schüler, L., Langwieder, K., 2006. The effectiveness of primary
safety features in passenger cars in Germany. ESV-paper No. 05-0145. 19th-
ESV-Conference, Washington D.C. (USA).
Langwieder, K., Gwehenberger, J., Hummel, T., Bende, J., 2003. Benefit poten-
tial of ESP in real accident situations involving cars and trucks, 16th
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles,
Nagoya (Japan).
Lie, A., Tingvall, C., Krafft, M., Kullgren, A., 2004. The effectiveness of ESP
in reducing real life accidents. Traffic Injury Prevention 5, 37–41.
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, 2006. NHTSA Says Rollover
Ratings for SUVs Improved in 2006 (http://www.mema.org/services/govt/
issuedetail.php?id=50currentOnly=yes).
NHTSA, 2006. DOT Proposes Anti-Rollover Technology for New Vehicles.
NHTSA Press releases NHTSA 09-06 Thursday, September 14, 2006.
Page, Y., Cuny, S., 2006. Is electronic stability control effective on French roads?
Accident Analysis and Prevention 38, 357–364.
Sferco, R., Page, Y., Lecoz, J.Y., Fay, P.A. S, 2001. Potential effectiveness of
electronic stability programs (ESP)–what European field studies tell us, Pro-
ceedings of the 17th international technical conference on the enhanced
safety of vehicles, Amsterdam.
Thomas, P., 2006. Crash involvement risks of cars with electronic stability
control systems in Great Britain. International Journal of Vehicle Safety
1, 267–281.
Unselt, T., Breuer, J., Eckstein, L., Frank, P., 2004. Avoidance of loss of con-
trol accidents through the benefits of ESP. FISITA Conference paper no.
F2004V295, Barcelona.
Zobel, R., Friedrich, H., Becker, H., 2000. Accident research with regard to
crashworthiness and crash avoidance, Conference Vehicle Safety 7–9 June
2000, London, UK.