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.
In Finland, where I live, driving cars is for over 18 year olds only. While an 18-year-old is by no mean (emotionally) an adult, it's still a far cry from 16.
So, how does it work in the states? I understand 16-year-olds are allowed to drive under some circumstances?
.: Max Romantschuk
Is 80 MPH legal anywhere in the USA?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Living in Atlanta, driving on 400, 285, and 85 everyday and during rush hour and not on rush hour, at least until 4 weeks ago.
Why yes, I've never had to suddenly increase my speed to avoid an accident. Braking, shifting lanes, and not being in the fast lanes usually keeps me from dying on the more perilous occasions.
Yes, I said that with a straight face.
You mad
Feel free to mod me down, but the issue needs to be raised.
We need a cars category. Many of us like to talk about this kind of stuff. ca.driving was one of the most popular newsgroups on ancient Usenet (and had a wonderful signal to noise ratio to boot).
We do not need the invisible article title text featured by the beta index and the firehose.
Back on topic:
I learned to drive in a large vehicle too - my parents' Plymouth Satellite. My mother screamed when I (slightly) misjudged the clearance on the right the first time I used my learner's permit (no harm, no foul, no accident, no ticket).
I suspect I'll do something similar when my wife gets her US license.
Tire chains are illegal in most states because they destroy the pavement very quickly. A quality set of snow tires are more than adequate in most cases. I recommend Blizzaks -- had a pair for 5 years and it was a dream using them in winter compared to all-seasons.
It amazes me the amount of people that will choose to white-knuckle their driving during every snow storm, or get in an accident with their $25k car causing thousands in damages, rather than spend $300 on a set of snow tires that will last for 5+ winters.
1. Most accidents don't happen on motorways (the only place where speeds of >80 mph would be likely). You'd have to have location-dependent speed limits to make significant inroads. This is already being done, the new Nissan GT-R has (in the Japanese version) a 120 mph speed limiter which is swiched off automatically when you're on a racetrack; it uses GPS to decide where you are. IMO, this is a nightmare scenario. It reduces the driver's freedom even more, and encourages people to just drive at the governed limit blindly, instead of paying attention to circumstances. The lack of dynamics in the traffic around you (everyone going at the same speed) lulls you into a false sense of security (see below).
A governed limit means there'll be small differences in speed due to calibration errors, etc, which means people will be overtaking with 1 mph speed difference all the time. In Europe, trucks already have a speed limiter, and as a result you get huge tailbacks behind two trucks going 50+/-1 mph side-by-side. To prevent this, you'd have to mandate radar-guided cruise control as well, and before you know it fully autonomous vehicles are mandatory.
2. Most accidents aren't caused by speeding, but by not paying attention. This means that having a speed limiter won't have much effect, and due to the false sense of security it provides, may increase the number of incidents.
Indeed. I LIVE IN BUFFALO (Well, actually a nearby suburb of Buffalo, but downtown is just 10 minutes away. Close enough.) and I can tell you for a FACT that not only does no-one here use chains in the winter, but chains and "studded tires" (tires with small metal bumps embedded in the rubber) are Illegal in New York State.
What do we drive? Well, pretty much what everybody else in the country drives. Only we have a heavier mix of SUV's with full 4 wheel drive than you might see in, say, California. Although we actually have a justification for having them, as the roads are impassable without 4 Wheel Drive on several occasions throughout the winter here.
Not to say that it's like living in the Rockies during the winter, but "Lake Effect" snow can be a real bitch to deal with in a small car. Let's all be honest here: Your boss isn't going to take the excuse that you can't get to work because your Pious (I mean, Prius) can't get out of the driveway because of 6 inches of snow. Those vehicles are all fine and well for areas with sunshine all year round, but since some of us live in areas with actual weather, we can't afford to drive a matchbox car, even if we wanted.
I drive a Jeep Liberty. No, not the most fuel efficient vehicle on the road, but not a monster either. It has full 4 wheel drive when I need it, and fair fuel economy to boot. (Better than my old '98 Bonneville, that's for sure!) And no Buffalo Winter is ever going to keep me from getting where I need to go. Frankly, the only change I would make is if I could have gotten the Diesel version, so I could make my own Bio-Diesel. What can I say? I'm cheap.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I
Very interesting video from Fifth gear about just how much safer newer cars are.
My wife's family swears by their old volvo station wagon, and having been in a similar accident to what you describe in it, is built like a tank in terms of how much structural damage it takes in a minor impact (ie, how expensive the repairs will be).
But as you can see in this video, it's more an illusion of safety than a reality.
New cars crumple and destroy themselves so that *they* absorb the force instead of *you* absorbing it. It's not just a way to make things cheaper and force insurance companies to buy new cars more often.
Here in northern New Jersey, we obviously do not get as much snow as you do in Buffalo, but we usually have several snowstorms with 6+ inches of snow.
The car I drive is about as far from an 4WD/AWD SUV -- a Mazda Miata. A tiny, lightweight, rear-wheel drive car. When November comes along, I switch out the summer tires with snow tires. And my car is more capable in the snow than just about every 4WD/AWD vehicle with all-season tires.
Case in point -- there is a moderately steep hill a few blocks from my house. Last winter, after a storm dropped 9 inches of snow, I was waiting at the bottom of the hill for 4WD Ford Explorer to either crest the hill or give up. After several attempts, all of which ended in him making it 1/3 - 1/2 of the way up the hill and sliding back down, he pulled off to the side of the road. I then started to drive my Miata up the hill, with the driver of the Explorer pointing and laughing at my car, probably telling his passenger 'what the hell is this guy thinking? My FOUR-wheel drive TRUCK can't get up this hill and he's trying to get up it in a freaking MIATA?!?!'
I wish I could have seen the look on his face when I easily made it to the top of the hill on my very first attempt. And after nearly every significant snowfall a similar situation occurs.
My point is that four-wheel drive does not automatically make your vehicle more capable of bad-weather driving. Too many people rely on it, and justify the poor fuel economy because 'you NEED four-wheel drive in this area because of its climate'. Even a vehicle which you would at first completely dismiss its poor-weather capabilities is far better at doing so (when properly set up) than a vehicle which people specifically purchase FOR its poor-weather 'capabilities'.
My spoon is too big.