It's super good if you have lots of rain (the rain sinks right away under the road surface) but it is prone to frost damage. Super quiet and great in the rain though, the difference is incredible when you switch from ZOAB to regular asphalt or the other way around.
It's also interesting but sad that many people don't even care enough to learn + practice super basic car maintenance as it pertains to safety equipment. I wonder how many accidents would prevented if everyone fixed their tyre inflation (there is a label on the driver's-side door frame, usually by where your butt or foot passes when stepping into the vehicle) and ensured they had well-performing brakes (a small mirror usually lets you see how much brake pad you have left, assuming you have 4-wheel disc, though the fronts are more important anyway).
Smog-testing is a thing, maybe we should have brake distance testing as well?
Without digging up statistics, I'd say technical failures of vehicles are not a very common primary reason for fatal accidents in West Europe. Bad tyres surely are sometimes a contributing factor.
It's partially a social justice issue, as we've managed to build up much of our country in such a way that walking and public transport are geometrically impractical, so poor people would be trapped at home if we banned them from driving the ill-maintained car they're barely able to afford to own and unable to afford to maintain.
It's only done every two years, however.
It is interesting, though, that road safety and risks to other people in traffic are not a big enough thing to trump the social justice angle (right of poor people to drive), but the environment card (emissions) is.
There is a weird logic to all this. Air quality makes a noticeable improvement in everyone's lives and, paradoxically, driving is so phenomenally dangerous and so unavoidable that people don't worry about the very minor factors like the one in twenty who isn't paying attention to their brake pads when assessing that risk.
It might be that the high-pitched squeal built into brake pads to notify people of impending doom is actually doing its job, though.
That is surprising, because it should be fairly obvious that if a car has brake failure, it could be lethal to anyone who happens to be in its path. Same goes with catastrophic failures of the steering system, although those are perhaps even more rare.
He spent a big chunk of that time trying to convince government agencies to build roads with pavement that had a better coefficient of friction. See for example
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/pavement_fr...
He estimated that they could reduce deaths considerably with more appropriate pavement.
In many cases, states refused to even allow pavement friction tests to occur, as they didn't want to be on the hook for paying for improvements if the tests showed poor friction. Also, requiring better friction would disallow certain road materials, which would adversely affect certain very large politically connected contractors.
In Europe, they take this much more seriously. The Germans have started using a concrete pavement that is both better for friction and is quiet.
It's interesting that if a government builds a substandard road that leads to people losing their lives, it doesn't seem to be a big deal, but if a car manufacturer produces a car that leads to a much smaller number of people dying, then it is.