Slashdot Mirror
Ford To Introduce Restrictive Car Keys For Parents
thesandbender writes "Ford is set to release a management system that will restrict certain aspects of a car's performance based on which key is in the ignition. The speed is limited to 80, you can't turn off traction control, and you can't turn the stereo up to eleven. It's targeted at parents of teenagers and seems like a generally good idea, especially if you get a break on your insurance." The keys will be introduced with the 2010 Focus coupe and will quickly spread to Ford's entire lineup.
Almost any 16 year old can drive in the states if they take a driver's ed course, get their permit, rack some hours up with another licensed driver, and then take a test.
Yes - West Texas, along portions of Interstates 10 and 20. Check the I-10 wikipedia page for a picture of the sign...
So you are stuck with the crap build in stereo also kids like to put in there own amps so the sound limit may not work that well then.
This would be used to limit their (mis)use of YOUR car. One would presume that if they are installing stereos and amps, its their car, and if its their car, they'll own the 'adult' keys for it anyway.
It seems to be popular to turn off traction control for parking-lot drag races, probably mainly for the visual/aural effect. On some cars where there was no way to switch it off, people would even install aftermarket firmware to let them do so (or on occasion there were undocumented button sequences to do so in the stock firmware); I seem to recall that being a big thing with BMWs for a while.
Probably not much of this frequently applies to a Ford Focus, though.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Actually, having automatically-enforced speed limits would be a tough call.
Federally, they would like to have this automatically enforced (as there is a huge cost related to speeding, accidents, road wear, etc).
But for states and particularly city gov't, speeding tickets are an excellent source of revenue.
Even though the data recorder in your car was sold to you using the "it just tracks info so the manufacturer can improve your cars safety", in reality it is used for:
-to deny you your warrantee, if you have a problem with your car, but it shows you doing something the manufacturer didn't want you to do (or go somewhere they didn't want you to go)
-to charge you with speeding and dangerous driving and whatever else the data record shows, when you get into an accident
And now that the gov't has found out how useful these data recorders are, they are mandating that more cars have them, that they cannot be disabled and that they track more data.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I am an actuarial analyst for a major property and casualty insurer in the US.
Insurance rates tend to trend upward because inflation, loss costs, and adjustment/expense costs trend upward. Despite popular belief, they do not trend upward because of the profit contingency loading, and this is due to the fact that personal insurance is a very highly regulated industry in the US. If my company simply decided to increase our loading by even 0.5%, you can be assured that every state Dept. of Insurance would write back immediately, asking why we feel justified raising profit loading by that amount, right before they deny our filings.
In layman's terms, loss costs increase because the value of insured properties such as autos and homes tend to increase. What I mean by this is not depreciation, or the decline in value of a single purchased asset, but rather the idea that the average paid value of assets or services rendered increases over time, due to inflation or technological improvements. Health care 10 years ago did not cost what it does today. Cars didn't cost what they do today. And so forth.
Loss adjustment expenses also increase in coordination with inflation and the cost of doing business.
It is also in part because more people survive accidents that the cost of insurance goes up. More survivors = more injured = higher medical payments. Similarly, more technology = higher repair cost. There is also a loose correlation in that safer vehicles tend to lead to less safe driving habits.
I understand that the average consumer is naive about the nature of insurance. If the public truly wishes to decrease their premiums, then in roughly decreasing order of importance, (1) drive less, (2) drive slower and more carefully, (3) don't buy SUVs or large vehicles. Of course, this only applies to the population as a whole. As an individual insured, your exposure as determined by your insurer has to do with your age, gender, location, credit history (where permitted), type and age of vehicle, and driving record, among other variables. The extent to which a group of insureds incurs greater losses is the extent to which those people pay higher premiums. That is the principle upon which actuarial ratemaking is founded, and if the public is unhappy with how much it costs to insure their assets, then stop having so much loss. After all, do you think insurers actually want to increase rates on their policyholders? They don't, because there is so much competitive pressure to keep rates low, for fear of losing business. In fact, if an insurer files a rate change significantly lower than their indicated rate need, that is a red flag to the DOI, because it raises the possibility of insolvency risk.
If you think insurance is a scam, tell that to the people whose entire earthly possessions were wiped out in Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, or the California wildfires. On the one hand, they'll tell you how insurance saved them, but on the other hand, if you don't live in a risk-prone state, you'll wonder why these people thought living on an island right along Hurricane Alley would be a good idea, and why you should be asked to partially subsidize their choice.
If you haven't seen it already, go watch Top Gear. It's effectively a British combination of Mythbusters and Car Talk.
Absolutely brilliant, and also one of the best-filmed shows on TV today.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
my experience is that 99.99999999% of drivers on the freeway (as well as off, but that's irrelevant) are horrible, horrible drivers, putting me at a great risk of dying (...) the solution isn't to slow down, because you inevitably have another person behind you who's keeping five feet of distance from you. you get boxed in, and there's no fucking other choice. there is no solution to this problem, and you are deluding yourself if you think there is.
Uh... brake, slowly? So that the guy behind you will have time to back off and you'll get a gap between you and the guy in front. Most people that drive 5 feet up another car's ass is because they want to pass it, so because a guy is riding 5 feet up a truck's ass you're going to pass it AND the truck (since there's no space in betwee), probably on the same clearing as the other guy will want to pass the same truck? With the same guy still behind you? Let me try to explain to you what that looks like from his angle.
"Well, I was getting ready to pass that truck, I was up close and ready waiting for a gap in traffic, when this crazy fucker comes from behind at a huge speed and whizzes past. When I finally passed the truck myself, I get past only to find the fucker has slowed down again and is now blocking me. OMG WTF is he messing with me?"
And no, the rest of the drivers just see two crazy fucks looking to get past the trucks, you'll get no sympathy there. I think people like you suffer from some mild form of claustrophobia, believe it or not normal people that drive the "boxed-in" line do just fine, it's pretty much always those that take stupid risks to pass other cars that kill themselves. And maybe hit someone going the other way, but you can't help that much.
P.S. A few pointers: A heavily loaded truck brakes slower than a regular car. Truck drivers usually have many road miles and rarely do brainfart maneuvers. They have high taillights so not only the closest car but probably you and a few behind you all realize it's breaking and slow down. A breaking car will almost certainly stop before a car in front that's lost control and isn't breaking - it's conservation of momentum. Personally, I'd worry a lot more if I just passed a truck and had to break hard - that is actually the most dangerous place to be.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Speeding up is never a good idea, if the situation is dangerous, chucking more energy into a possible crash will just make it worse.
Secondly, you should be leaving enough space in front of you to brake safely, and if that space becomes compromised you should rebuild that space quickly. There is no excuse for going into the back of someone, it means that you wasn't driving safely, and insurance claims agree on this 99% of the time.
Thirdly, top speed is not the same as acceleration. Acceleration can be handy to get out of a tight situation like pulling out of a junction or onto a roundabout, but going more than 80 mph is not a tight situation.