Sure, ABS is an expensive option. But let's face it, biking is a relatively dangerous activity. More than 1 rider gets killed each week in London alone, so my philosophy is to have and use the safest equipment that I can afford - not because it will stop me from being killed or injured, but because it will reduce the risk.
If the event never happens, will I have wasted my money? The answer has to be 'yes', but, of course, the only way I can be certain that the event won't happen, is to leave the bike parked up and travel some other way. But because the event
could happen, I'm prepared to pay a risk premium. That's why I bought ABS; that's why I comprehensively insure my bike; that's why I wear the best helmet I can afford etc etc.
The absolute risk of an event is largely proportional to miles travelled (varying by type of road, seasonal use etc), so higher mileages would tend to reduce the risk premium/mileage ratio.
But does ABS work?
goose already flagged up the test (
here) which shows that in the dry, there's not too much to choose between ABS and non-ABS. But look at the difference when it's wet - a massive
68 feet difference in braking distance from 60mph between the novice with ABS and the very best without ABS. The report does not say what speed the non-ABS rider was doing 68 feet before he finally stopped, but I'l guess that it was fast enough to have a big accident. For three of the testers, their non-ABS stopping distance (350+ft) was nearly twice as long as the best with ABS (193ft).
websGSA suggests that a racing driver would never use ABS. He's right, but only because the FIA banned ABS in F1 several years ago because the systems had been honed to such an art, there was no way of differentiating between the drivers!
So, yes, the evidence does seem to support the positive argument.
You might say that I'm biased because I have ABS. I'd say that I have ABS because I think that it's £750 well spent - even if I never use it!
Greg