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.
This is sure to make every one feel better... until some poor kid gets creamed because he couldn't get out of the way.
A good old fashioned spanking will set them right.
No need to worry about this hi-tech gadget rubbish, that too in Ford. :)
slashdot rocks
as trying to keep porn away from your son.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
I would have thought that vale key limiting the holder to only accessing ignition and not glove compartment/trunk would be prior art to this. They are both keys that limit access for practical reasons.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
That's absurd. If you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to take responsibility for the way you do it. If a parent can't trust her kid to drive responsibly, she shouldn't be letting him drive in the first place.
While there are a few situations I've been in where the ability to exceed 80 mph has been critical to safety (getting out from behind dangerous drivers on the freeway who are liable to cause a pileup, for instance), that's not the point.
If you can't trust your kid to drive responsibly, get his ass off the road until you can.
I find that scary. Then again I live in an area where public transport actually works, might be different in a country planned with the assumption that everyone has a car...
.: Max Romantschuk
Why haven't people realized that this kind of thing isn't compatible with the way teenagers think? When you restrict them like this, you're basically telling them that they aren't trusted. I don't care whether or not that's true, but that's how it will be interpreted by them. They're going to push against the restrictions, especially when so many of their friends don't have to put up with the same limitations. This is no substitute for teaching teens to be responsible drivers. Letting them know that you trust them and allowing them to use their own judgment is a huge step towards them becoming more mature and responsible. Chances are they'll probably have more respect for their parents and the vehicle itself. But yeah, if they screw that trust over this seems like a pretty good punishment. I just hope no parents enable these features on their poor children by default.
so, why do the parents need to drive over 80, turn off traction control, and turn the stereo up to 11? they all seem like pretty bad ideas whoever is driving the car?
Would be a car that logged exactly where it went and at what speed, automatically uploading it to a PC in your house. I don't think kids would be anywhere near as reckless knowing that their parents would see exactly how they'd been driving.
Much, perhaps most, dangerous driving by kids is caused by trying to show off to their mates. Limit the speed and power and the vehicle to its baic transport function. No fun trying to do a burn out in a car that refuses to do it.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
It varies from state to state.
In some states you can get a jr. license at 16. This generally limits when you can be behind the wheel (usually from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.) how many passengers you can have in your vehicle (sometimes only 1 or no other passengers under the age of 18) and mandates that if you get a moving violation you lose your license for a period of time automatically. Again, all of the above vary from state to state, and sometimes even city to city.
In other states you have to be 17 to get a license, and in some parts of the country (NYC for example) you must be 18 in order to obtain a license.
The bigger problem IMHO, is the requirements that are needed to get a license. I'm sure it has changed by now, but 10 years ago or so, to get a license in NJ, you never even had to take the car out into traffic. License tests were administered in coned parking lots. I'm sure there would be far fewer accidents with young people behind the wheel, if the testing to get a license was more stringent, and actually proved that you were a good driver.
Those are the things you have to deal with when your country grows after the advent of the automobile, and not before. (You could also argue that the problem is both social and civic engineering in nature, but that's a topic for another occasion).
I don't see how limiting speed to 80 is very useful at all. That's already extremely fast. For you metric folk:
80 miles per hour = 128.74752 kilometers per hour
Not only that, but some of the most dangerous driving happens in much slower speed zones, for example residential areas, or around schools. How is this going to stop drivers from ploughing over children at 40 mph?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Tell me something. With all the safety features that have been added to cars in the last 30 years or so, from seat belts to air bags, all peddled as something that would keep our insurance rates from going up, how come everyone's auto insurance keeps going up, *never* down.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'm sure californians will feel very safe knowing they can't access every single horsepower to get off that bridge before it collapses in an earthquake.
Riiiiight... so the golden gate bridge is bucking and swaying, cars all around you are coming to a stop... and your going to slam on the gas in your Porsche? You won't get 10 meters before you have an accident on the bridge at the best of times... and your going to do during or in the immediate aftermath of an major earthquake...
yep, that's one of the reasons why there's a "thinkofthechildren" tag...
This is part of the trend towards restriction being the answer to everything. I'm a liberal, but I have a strong libertarian streak, and it seems like whenever our society confronts a problem, increasingly the answer isn't to understand the cause and think about a solution, but to dumb the process down so much that it's impossible to do anything
Thank you Dave Raggett
You seem to live in a boolean universe. Parents sort of trust their kids to drive responsibly, but know it will vary with who else is in the car. It makes sense to loan a car that they cannot show off in, nor be *encouraged* to drive faster than they have competence. Also, distraction in the car is a problem is well. Slower means more time to react to a threat.
Stats show that males (prob females too these days) stabilize at safe driving only when over 25. Stupid to only allow them to borrow the car when that old. They need the socialization way before then. Slower accidents may cause injury, but are no where near as likely to be fatal.
As for needing to drive over 80. Yup, it is remotely possible that that might happen. They also would need a bottle of whiskey in the car to act as medicinal alcohol in case of accidents. Yeah, right.
Indeed... current empirical evidence indicates that the US government will use any means in their grasp to establish and run a police state. Buying a car that gives them control over your actions is ... well, naive at best, fucking stupid at worst.
Until the US government decides to show that they are not trying to install a police state, there is absofuckinglutely NO reason to trust them. period.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
If you need to do faster than 80 MPH to pass a truck, then the truck is probably going plenty fast, and you have no reason to pass it.
Why do you _have_ to overtake the huge truck? Isn't it going in the same direction as you are?
.: Max Romantschuk
Depends on the state. In my state (Illinois), the minimum age is 16, although other states (low pop. density or heavy agricultural industry) have the age as low as 14.
There's no situation where a teenager needs to drive over 80, probably; that only occurs on the highway, and most parents probably aren't going to let their teenagers drive on the interstate.
My objection to this isn't so much that it prevents kids from doing things they might need to do for safety, but that someone who does the right thing only because they have no opportunity to do the wrong thing isn't really responsible.
Just as with alcohol in the USA, you know those kids -- when they finally get unfettered access to their cars -- are going to drive like maniacs and cause all sorts of wrecks.
I'm sorry, but most teenagers can barely drive in the first place, let alone when panicked during an emergency.
You mad
Can't wait till the first kit comes out to hack car keys.
Adults will use it to keep the dealers from gouging them on new keys (because hardware stores definitely won't be able to replicate them), and kids will take advantage of it to kill the restrictions.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I find that scary. Then again I live in an area where public transport actually works, might be different in a country planned with the assumption that everyone has a car...
Indeed. You are blessed by living in a small, densely-populated, urban country. Assuming people have cars is the only thing that works when you have vast areas that are lightly populated. You can drive from, say, Oulu to Helsinki in a workday. That doesn't scale when you're talking about an area 36 times larger.
Advice: on VPS providers
Aren't you the guy who was arguing that it was perfectly safe to eat and use your cellphone while driving?
Back in the day, i'd say yes. A cell phone back then was dialable by touch, and no more distracting than changing the radio station.
Now.. you have to look at it continuously, navigate through nine menus, etc.
As for eating.. it depends on what the food is.
Trying to eat a steak dinner isn't exactly the safest thing in the world, but reaching into a bag and popping gummy bears into your mouth every once in a while is, once again, no more distracting than changing the radio station.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Most accidents involving teens aren't 80mph freeway crashes - they're taking slower roads too fast. I was in a wreck (car written off, I walked away with bruises) with a friend driving - he tried to take a roundabout at 50 instead of 30 on a wet night. The problem isn't a function of power, speed or traction - it's recklessness. Trust me - I was in a freaking Metro when it happened. Limiting the speed to 80 just means that kids will get their kicks driving 60 in a 30 zone or something similar.
Just like the titanic needs no lifeboats...
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Accelerating from 50 MPH to 80 MPH in something like a Civic is going to take you around 5 seconds (based on 0-60 in 10 seconds). In 5 seconds, you have already covered 160 feet more than the semi, and they don't get much longer than around 120 feet (a Turnpike Double is two 53-foot trailers). So you've already passed the semi by the time you hit 80 MPH.
So many people on this board are trying to justify inexperienced teenagers driving faster than 80 MPH for 'safety', yet every example given is laughable.
When I was younger, I use to drive fast (85+) in my old 4-cylinder Mustang (yes, they made four-banger Mustangs), but I'm probably lucky that my wimpy engine limited my speed.
There is no good reason to drive so fast, especially if you are still learning to drive.
Actually no. Traction control will not stop you from having to rock the car out. What do you think it is, a floatation tool?
maximum traction and traction control, are not related. You do realize what traction control actually does right? During overspin it stops tires from spinning or cuts their power (most non SUV vehicles are not built to be capable of simply transferring power from one wheel to another). Thinking traction control provides traction is as dangerous as thinking that ABS decreases your stopping distance. Both are fatal flaws in driving philosophy. Both do the opposite, and that is exactly what they are intended for.
Now lets think further. We're talking a car that is extremely light, therefore will need to rock out of even small amounts of snow to get moving. How small?
How about snow you just DROVE through, but now you're at a stoplight. Suddenly, you're stuck. Wow, traction control sure helps here, that is, until you can't get out because it won't let you rock the wheels fast enough to get out. Think this doesn't happen? Try living somewhere with actual snow.
And around 25 your brain is physically mature. Go ask a neuroscientist and get a clue, my friend. :)
.: Max Romantschuk
Try living somewhere with actual snow.
People that live where it snows use tire chains, not some sort of "rock the wheels" technique. If you are driving a ford focus in the snow without tire chains, you have bigger things to worry about than the ability to turn traction control off.
bullshit, I managed to scape a patrol car when I was 15 and driving without license.
Riiiiight.. so the golden gate bridge is bucking and swaying, cars all around you are coming to a stop... and your going to slam on the gas in your Porsche?
They kept driving over the Tacoma bridge while it was bucking and swaying...
The Tao that can be named is not the Tao
I trust my son more than I'd have trusted myself at that age, but still...
I'd like him to be able to use the newer more reliable car, but prevent him from being pressured into being a dick.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You've never actually been anywhere that it snows, have you?
Do you honestly think the millions of people in Minneapolis, Chicago, Buffalo all use tire chains? Roads would have to be replaced completely every year.
Well, here in the Twin Cities in Minnesota, probably only 5% of people use tire chains, because they have to be able to drive on the highway (at highway speeds) as well, and probably also because they know how to drive in the snow. Without tire chains, you DO need to rock the car back and forth with a quick reverse/drive action sometimes to get out of the little rut you're in.
To some of the above posters: the ones who are saying traction control should be OFF for snow are CORRECT. My '08 Jetta's manual, and common sense about braking in snow, confirm it.
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
Both were declared state emergencies. Those without insurance still got reimbursed for their losses.
"Insurance" isn't an inherent scam, but MANY of the companies offering insurance are cheaters liars and scammers.
See Allstate offering ridiculously, illegally low levels of coverage. See any of the insurers that up tons of risk, and teeter on the edge of bankruptcy when they have to pay-up. See insurance companies offering plans that have fine print to specifically EXCLUDE the MOST LIKELY form of natural disaster in an area, so that the plan you're paying for is utterly worthless.
Conversely, I also believe it is being forced upon those that don't need it in many situations:
Those who drive safe, and/or very little, still pay ridiculous amounts for required automotive liability insurance in some states, because it is blanket required. Those who could afford to pay off more than the liability amount aren't allowed to, unless they jump through ridiculous hoops.
Home-owner's insurance for a cheap house in a very low-risk area should not be required for a mortgage... I consider that equivalent to a hidden premium levied on numerous home buyers. And for the reasons above, it often doesn't help, anyhow...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
um... what? ABS increases your stopping distance? Help me out with your logic here since I'm no car pro... ABS works by keeping your tires in the static friction arena and avoiding moving into dynamic friction since static friction is greater. ABS works by feathering the breaking when it detects a tire slipping with respect to the other three, leading to not skidding, leadingto a reduction in your stopping distance.
"a person could break much better than ABS if he/she just knew what he/she was doing..." I'm expecting this type of argument but i have a hard time believing that an engineer couldn't design a better stopping mechanism with ABS than even the best person could do without ABS. Similar to how high tech automatic transmissions can out perform even the best drivers now a days... With modern computers, mechanics can out perform human reflexes.
Your statement sounds like BS to me, but since I don't know anything about your logic I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to enlighten me.
don
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
Seriously, traditional societies recognize adulthood at, like 13.
Seriously, traditional societies were totally fucked up. I'm not sure why we should be using them as role models.
... and then they built the supercollider.
It used to be the case that a very good driver would be able to stop quicker without ABS than with it - the system is a compromise between all the different conditions it has to encounter, dry roads, wet, snow, ice etc, whereas a human can adapt to the conditions. The problem with this is that *everyone* thinks they are the aforementioned "very good driver", and that ABS is for all the other idiots that can't drive. I don't know if the old "good driver being better than ABS" thing is true any more though, I find it hard to believe that the technology hasn't progressed over the years.
I just knew this post, and others like it, would fill the comments section of this article. As usual, the two faced kneejerk nature of Slashdot groupthink rears it's ugly head... On one hand, the hive mind insists that parents are responsible and accountable for monitoring and controlling their kids - but each time a tool to actually allow the parents to do that is discussed here, the same hive mind rears up on it's back legs and howls about how unfair it is for parents to monitor and control their kids.
I give it 96 hours before the insurance companies change the conditions of their policies to deny payouts if the device is damaged in any way, including damage from an accident.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
If you think insurance is a scam, tell that to the people whose entire earthly possessions were wiped out in Hurricanes Katrina and Ike
I remember hearing a lot from people who didn't get anything because their homes were (according to the insurance companies) destroyed by the flooding (i.e. storm surge) of Katrina, and not high winds, and they didn't have flood insurance because they were rather far inland and weren't in a flood-prone region.
Don't get me wrong; the rest of your analysis is spot-on. But the profit motive in trying to find ways to reject claims can't be ignored.
Locking the brakes up might stop you from being decapitated by stopping your car from going under that trailer to begin with.
You failed highschool physics, didn't you? Once the brakes are locked, the tyres start to slide. Once they start to slide, they have almost no grip at all. With the brakes locked, you slide almost as far on snow as you do on dry tarmac. Try it some time. Just, not near me.
The first website you list, apart from being terribly unprofessional, gives statistics suggesting that, in ages between 1 and 29, automotive accidents are the leading cause of death. While the percentage of deaths is certainly higher for teens from 15-19, this is also the period when most people in the US learn to drive, and would certainly seem understandable given that.
The second seems absurdly inaccurate and almost blatantly misleading if not entirely incorrect. Apart from considering a huge time period (1995 to 2004), and listing meaningless raw numbers as something that should matter, the numbers themselves, and especially the percentages, can't possibly be right if interpreted in the most obvious way. Looking at the data from the NHTSA, for example, there were around 37,000 auto accident deaths every year during the period, and teen drivers accounted for nowhere near the "36.2 percent" that the article implied. Taking a single year, 2006 (the most recent), fatal accidents of those from 16-20 were significantly outnumbered by accidents in other age groups, and accounted for only 13% of fatal accident deaths; while these numbers are relatively meaningless for the purpose of making conclusions, they still contradict those in the article.
A better consideration, instead of looking at deaths per age group by raw numbers, which is useless, or deaths per age group per number of drivers in the group, which is somewhat useful, would be to look at deaths indexed by the number of years the driver had had a licence, per number of drivers in each group. It is not obvious that lack of responsibility is the major factor in traffic-related deaths rather than lack of experience, even if many sources seem to jump to conclusion with insufficient evidence.
I've experienced what you said once, driving way too fast and realising the next corner was much steeper than I thought. I'd locked the brakes and started turning into the corner, but with no effect. When I'd slowed down a bit I released the brakes a little, the tyres bit and I immediately got thrown through the dry stone wall on the opposite side of the road.
However, having one car with ABS, and one without, I do think ABS also reduces stopping distance. A dog ran out in front of my Ford Focus and I slammed on the brakes and stopped in an incredibly short distance. In my other car, I'd have skidded and I'm pretty sure I'd have hit the dog.
That take place at the school that they are already at. And I'm pretty sure that buses generally take kids to and from school.
As he suggested, I'm guessing you live in a much more compact area. At my old high school, buses DO take kids home from school - if you leave school when it ends. If you stay extra for sports, or any other extracurricular activity, then you have to arrange your own transport. The area is so sparsely populated that the school was 45 miles away from my house. Imagine a radius 45-50 miles and explain how all the buses are going to be recalled back to the school to take home the 1 or 2 children who were on there routes and needed to stay. Parents? Most parents don't work anywhere near the school either. If they had to return to take the kids home it'd be ridiculous.
So, you do the obvious and just let the 16 year olds drive. 16 year olds ARE sucky drivers, but they're sucky because they're inexperienced, not because they're 16. Make it 18, and 18 year olds are sucky drivers (actually they still are IMHO). Make it 32 and 32 year olds will be suck drivers because drivers will always be sucky the first few years they're driving.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
In Florida, they could market this to the kids for their parents...
Before these things were baned in F1 racing (traction control and ASB type brakes, but I think they are allowed anti skid braking now) all the cars had them. So a F1 driver is quicker around a race track pulling 3g in turns and 4g braking and at the very least is safer. But *you* are better off without them? Perhaps you should give them some pointers. Or perhaps you aren't as good a driver as you think you are.
The main reason ABS is a good thing is that you can still steer the car, which you can't do if locked up. Also the static friction coefficient is *higher* than the dynamic friction coefficient.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Yup. Everyone should find a nice large empty parking lot, or a wide flat empty road, and give their ABS a try. Many cars actually vibrate your foot on the pedal quite dramatically as well, and people who are not expecting it will actionall STOP BREAKING since it startles them. PLEASE LEARN HOW YOUR CAR BEHAVES!
The first time is snows, take your car to a parking area (get permission ar at least let security know you're not doing donuts for fun). Drive hard, try to swerve (safely), learn how your car handles when avoiding imaginary objects. Learn it's skidding behavior. Learn it's breaking behavior (especially how it handles turning while breaking hard).
In my opinion, every county should have a place where you are required to go within 30 days of registering a new vehicle, and make every driver insured to drive that car go through a vehicle handling course to learn how to handle it properly. This small expense ($20 per driver sounds fair), would mean the ability to lower insurance rates, and far fewer accidents.
Newer cars in the mid and upper price ranges now not only deploy ABS combined with traction control, but many are equipped with intelligent brake steering as well. Even without pressing the brake pedal, steering the car in certain ways makes the car apply breaks to specific wheels. This dramatically improves handling and limits your tail end sliding out on you when performing avoidance maneuvers. When breaking, pressure is applied to different wheels individually, and on really well designed cars, ABS will only trigger on wheels that it detects slipage on.
I was quite surprised reading the manual for my van that it not only had ABS and traction control, but that the rear end actually employs hydrolics to that regardless of load, the rear end is allways level woth the ground, and it keeps the rear end a maximum distance up (lower to ground = more stable). Many vans you'll notice rise up on their springs when unloaded, and this causes the rear end to be more top heavy. My van also deploys 4 wheen steering, further helping rear end spin outs. The breaking system calibrates breaking performance from front and rear based on the load detectedby the hydrolics. When I attach a hitch and trailer, breaking also changes somewho to help prevent loss of trailer control, especially with break-equipped 6 wire trailer hookups.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Ok, a few comments. First, there really is no reason for blasting the stereo or driving over 80- so I don't see an issue with that. On that same note, I see this as more of a "marketing" gimmic than anything else; to make parents feel better for their lack of time spent teaching their kid how to drive. What I do have a problem with is the innability to disable traction control (at least within certain limits). I grew up in areas where we got a lot of snow and traction control is AWFUL if you are trying to get your car unstuck. I completely understand the need for traction control over 15mph because it DOES help you maintain control (my Saabs ESC is awesome at speed); but for that initial "getting the car moving" it can be nothing but an unpredictable hindrance...just when you go to rock the car- the power cuts out...awful, or sometimes it doens't cut and the car moves more than expected...not fun. Now some might say "well they shouldn't drive when its snowing". What I am talking about is getting out of that "leftover from the plow around your parking spot" snow...you don't always have a shovel handy and there is definately a real chance of getting stuck somewhere if you can't rock the car effectively in some of our snowier climates. In my opinion the BEST safety equipment is driver training. I cannot say enough for real behind-the-wheel defensive driver training. Not the "driving school" you take to get your permit (in NJ anyway); but where they simulate "bad" conditions and teach you how to drive safely through them.
Traction control and ABS brakes are for people who want to feel safe without being safe.
That is demonstrably not true.
ABS brakes will put you under the trailer. Locking the brakes up might stop you from being decapitated by stopping your car from going under that trailer to begin with.
If you are that close to the trailer you are driving WAY too close to begin with. ABS is for stopping when the traction sucks and locking the brakes would induce a dangerous skid. ABS is no substitute for safe driving technique.
ABS won't let you lock your brakes up at all, which can get you mangled up in rush hour traffic if you're not used to it.
A) If you aren't that used to the car you shouldn't be driving in dangerous conditions. B) If ABS comes on and the weather isn't horrendous, you are driving WAY too close. C) If the weather is horrendous, you should be providing even more distance to the car ahead anyway and ABS will help you stop faster than without.
You are wearing that mandated seat belt, yes? Ever try to think of unbuckling it so you can dive for the floor in a panic situation?
No. That would be retarded. I cannot even conceive of a reasonably likely scenario where I would ever want to do that while moving. I'm also not aware of case where that would have saved anyone. Want the best odds of survival in an accident? Wear your seatbelt.
FWIW, I lived in the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County area for 25 years without needing snow chains.
I lived in Geauga County, right in the heart of the snowbelt for 20 years and my parents still live there. You are right, snow chains are not necessary there, though snow tires aren't a bad idea if you have the cash to get some. I did however keep a set of snow chains just in case and did have occasion to use them once. However go to Tahoe or various parts of the Rockies and snow chains are not only a good idea they are often required.
It's my opinion that ABS and traction control are NOT needed if the driver is properly trained in local conditions.
Normally you are correct in most locations. ABS and traction control are no substitute for safe driving technique. That does not however make them useless. They demonstrably improve safety which is why their use has been mandated.
>before you know it fully autonomous vehicles are mandatory.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
For me it's a vision of Paradise -- having my own car but not having to spend time driving it. (Plus, presumably, under automatic control the commute would go faster.)
And no I can't take a bus because there isn't any public transportation between home and work, and while I do ride my bike I don't do it often because it's a 110 km ride round-trip and I'm not tough enough to do that every day.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
This is more like user permissions.
Crashing into another car on the highway will likely result in a multiple car collusion and many deaths and injuries. Doing you best to drive off the road would only endanger yourself, thus I maintain the OPs recommended course of action is 100% selfish in nature.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?