I think this is true, but there are still reasons to like RWD:
- Smaller turning circle because the front wheels can turn further without complicated engineering.
- More traction when accelerating on a wet surface, due to weight transfer backwards. (1)
- Usually better weight distribution due to engine layout.
There are other downsides in addition to what you mentioned:
- Any scenario where you will definitely lose traction, then rear-wheel drive becomes harder to control. There was an old Top Gear episode with a steep grassy hill, and drivers of the RWD cars could not get up it. (2)
- The transmission tunnel required for RWD
- Reduced fuel economy due to having to turn the power 90 degrees (assuming the engine is mounted in the front). (3)
1) This one may sound like unnecessary acceleration, and it probably often is, but there are situations where it can arise, especially if you prefer older cars. There is one particular hill I used to encounter frequently, where you are trying to turn onto a main road, so you want to accelerate fairly briskly to avoid waiting for a huge gap in traffic. On economy tires, in the wet, you can easily reach the limits of FWD. I would see many cars time a gap, and then have to rapidly decide to give up on it when their acceleration was much slower than they expected due to wheel spin. I think there may have been bus lane paint on the road too, but I'm not certain. Obviously AWD is even better than RWD for traction, but at that point, that is usually only when requiring rapid acceleration.
2) I suppose with perfect/computer assisted driving, RWD would out-perform FWD.
3) I once searched, and had a very hard time quantifying this, but it is almost certainly a few percent, and perhaps more. There are also weight differences involved because of the long drive-shaft, but I think the effect is larger than that. It is very hard to find an apples-to-apples comparison.