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.
Do Fords even go up to 80?
Don't know if an external component speed limiting the Focus to 80 is really necessary anyway.
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
would have saved me the humiliation of "racing" my parents' taurus
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.
You are missing the much more important other side .... if parents think it is good to limit performance while kids are driving, what if your government thinks it is a good idea to limit performance for all drivers?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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
Apparently, a Cheetah.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
If you're trying to accelerate from 70 to 90 mph to avoid an accident I'd be willing to bet that you would have been much better off just hitting the brakes anyway. If they were talking about restricting acceleration, you might have a point. As it is, I don't see having a limited top speed causing any accidents.
You mean speed limits?
Just like what if the government decided that everyone should have a 10 PM bedtime, and no desert for a week after yelling at your sister. Parenting a slippery slope people.
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a really cheap/pointless marketing BS that isn't actually meant to really accomplish anything ?
80miles per hour is plenty fast to kill a lot of people... yup, awesome safety feature right there. Wait, let's go for double the safety, 40miles per hour...hrm, can still kill plenty of people ...and you're prolly endangering others by driving too slow in areas where you're supposed to drive fast.
so pretty much ...pointless/useless equivalent of "security theater" ?
But wait, let's look at it from the direction this system oppresses kids/curtails their "freedoms" instead. Yeah, stick it to the man! (mum) fucking nazis making you do the dishes and not let you drive over 80.
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?
That's just silly. Let's apply that logic to something (anything!) else:
If parents think it's ok to have an established curfew for their kids, what if the government thinks it's a good idea to establish a curfew for everyone!?
If parents think it's ok to monitor their kids internet usage, what if the government thinks it's a good idea to monitor everyone's internet usage!?
If parents think it's ok to send their kids to their room when they don't eat their vegetables, what if EVERYONE gets sent to their room when they don't eat their vegetables?!
So no there is no "much more important other side"... unless of course, you're silly.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Apparently, spelling and grammar help readers understand what others are writing.
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.
Well, then the car won't sell very well in rural texas. Not every solution is applicable to every problem.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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
Go live in atlanta, dc, or pennsylvania for a while. Then type that with a straight face.
prolly easier to type with my hands and a keyboard, wherever i am
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.
GM already did that in a car where cutting back the car's performance makes a difference - a
"valet" key limited the 1990-1995 ZR-1 Corvette to 225bhp or so, by shutting off the secondary intake runners and secondary fuel injectors.
Who's going to notice the difference in a Ford Focus? Limited power or not, 0 to 60 still takes about eight weeks. Traction control? Can a Focus actually break traction on dry ground?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
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.
You are aware that a lot, if not most, newer commercial vehicles (cargo vans, straight trucks) have speed limiters on them that cut out somewhere between 66-80mph. As someone who drives them every day I couldn't tell you once that it's ever been an issue other than "I wish I was going faster because then I'd get there sooner."
Don't like that one? There are plenty of cars that have top end limiters, I believe there one of the old Chevys cut out at 115 or so. How many people do you think have been complaining about that one?
I rarely drive the speed limit in anything but rush hour traffic, but the idea that not being able to go faster than 80 is endangering anybodies life, or especially more people than it's protecting is complete bullshit. It's right up there with people who don't wear seatbelts because they know a guy who knows a guy who was killed by one, you can come up with any harebrained scenario to justify it (I've already seen "racing off a collapsing bridge") but you're just grasping at straws.
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.
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.
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.
This could be at, say, 3 in the morning.
I don't really care, though, since I won't be the one dying. I don't even have a driver's license.
My other car is first.
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!!
Have you never avoided an accident on the highway by speeding up?
I'd daresay that it's a *better* option in many cases than slamming on the brakes -- you already know what's in front of you, but might not necessarily be able to tell how far away the nearest car behind you is, or correctly judge that driver's stopping distance.
That all said, the Focus isn't a terribly thrilling car to drive, and probably shouldn't be driven much above 80mph as it is. This would be a much more interesting story if they were including the feature on the Mustang to start.
The decision to lock out the traction control toggle also seems a bit bizarre. I don't know of anybody (teenagers or adults) who have ever actually turned it off.
I could see these "keys" becoming mandatory for people on provisional licenses, and would actually approve of such use (within reason). Although there are cases where it's reasonably safe to drive fast, one needs some experience before developing a good sense of that.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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
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
...what if your government thinks it is a good idea to limit performance for all drivers?
Aren't car manufacturers already choking the power of their engines by software for their more high-end cars? Although I have no proof, I am almost sure that they do this already for the cars sold in Finland, at least.
I am convinced that I can always be convinced otherwise.
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!
Depends on the direction. It could well be accelerating at 9.8m/s^2. But if that's the case, you're screwed anyways.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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.
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!!
.
The government sets speed limits.
It sets the standards you must meet to drive a certain type of vehicle. It limits the type of vehicle that can be used on certain roads.
If you own a high-performance classic that pumps more pollutants in the air than a steam locomotive the government can restrict your driving to the Labor Day Parade.
But it was the private insurance companies that brought an abrupt end to the muscle car era of the sixties.
Aren't car manufacturers already choking the power of their engines by software for their more high-end cars?
Is Finland flat?
The way they started regulating cars in the bad old days of the Dick Nixon 55 era[1] was to limit the rated speeds that tires could be used. Limiting engine performance would limit being able to go up steep hills and sounds dangerous.
[1] Which took 20 years to correct.
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.
Yes, but it's a foot in the door.
And that's how all the fabulous gov't regulations happen. They all start of with "To keep you safe, we need to...".
In the US, they stopped bothering with incremental regulations. They just get the first increment, then ignore the limits (see NSA security letters, secret wiretapping, PATRIOT act misuse).
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Let me reiterate the GP's point:
And now we've seen "racing 80+ on gravel tracks normally reserved for Finnish rally drivers to save a kid from concussion to the head, caused by wild mÃÃse"
Bot Assisted Blogging
Seriously.
I was rear-ended at a fairly high-speed (I was sitting at a stop light) a few years ago in a Volvo, by a Saturn.
The Saturn was a mess (and literally *bounced* off of the Volvo). My car needed a new bumper and a bit of paint*.
There's something to be said for putting teenagers in slow, heavy cars. The Volvo wasn't particularly *slow* or underpowered, though it also certainly wasn't the sort of car that one "joyrides" in.
The first car I drove was a Minivan. It served very well to teach me the, uh, limitations of certain vehicles. Having a good sense of when to be conservative (and also when it's OK to be somewhat less so) was one of the more important driving skills I picked up. It also seated 7, which was great as a teenager, despite the extremely "uncool" stigma associated with driving a van.
Learning to drive in an SUV, on the other hand, is a terrible idea. They're so huge, heavy, and overpowered that you can get away with just about anything, and also not face many consequences if you do somehow screw up.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Anything distracting the driver is a huge danger, I can't even count the number of times I've been in near collision with a driver on his cell, looking on a map or otherwise engaged in anything but making sure there isn't a bike in his way when taking the next right.
And as to the people claiming you need the extra horse powers to get away; not bloody likely. Most will panic and do silly things, you don't need horsepower to get away from an accident, you need to keep your head cool and go around it. Going faster doesn't help you if you are already doing the wrong thing.
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.
this might be a dumb question, but what's a 5mph bumper? i'm not really a car guy.
also, wouldn't it be better for people to drive in lighter cars with well-designed crumple zones to absorb impacts rather than cars with big heavy steel frames that add momentum/energy to a collision?
just because the car's body holds together during a collision doesn't mean the driver's will. the stronger the car is built the less energy it will absorb in a collision, thus the driver is more likely to be injured. so the idea that you need a big heavy car to protect yourself on the road seems out of line with reality--and it's actually counterproductive as it just makes roads more dangerous.
and despite the perceived trend of cars being built less sturdy than they used to be, car safety has gone up significantly in the past few decades. occupant fatality rates (per 100,000 population) declined 22.7% from 1975 to 1992. and that trend has pretty much continued. occupant injury rate has declined 23.6% from 1992 to 2005.
You're a cunt, and if I had mod points your karma would reflect that. Not just for this post, but all the other stupid ones in this thread.
No, never in my life have I had to speed up to avoid an accident.
Just like all the others claiming its nice to do so, you sir do not belong behind the wheels of a car. The reasoning behind you speeding up to avoid the collision are all indicators of you being unable to proper factor in your environment.
You should at all times be aware of your surroundings so should the need to get away arise you can safely go around the trouble; if the car behind you is too close you should take the foot off the speeder and let him get by you since he is a hazard to both you and himself. At all times you should be keeping a safe breaking distance to the car in front of you - again this might mean taking the foot off the pedal and easing back a bit, live with it, getting to your destination 30 seconds later might end up saving your life.
But is it OK if the government decided that police can help enforce a parent's discipline on their dependent minor? Because that's what this is. It's a KEY, people! If you think your kid is a good enough driver to judge when going faster is the more appropriate course of action, give them the unlimited key.
This empowers parents, not the government. I'll have it, thanks!
And around 25 your brain is physically mature. Go ask a neuroscientist and get a clue, my friend. :)
.: Max Romantschuk
A friend of mine who I also work with had an incident like this a few years ago during his senior year in high school. He was at a friends house with some people and one of them was playing with a semi-auto glock and put a round into his stomach.
If his friend hadn't been able to floor the pedal in his car, he would not have gotten to the hospital in time and would not have survived.
Incidentally, his friend was on learning permit and they were chased by police for about 6 miles through town. They gave him a warning that if they ever caught him doing anything wrong while driving after this they'd not be lenient.
Anyway, I think this, while perhaps noble, is a misguided idea. The ability to fully control speed, traction control, and other features can be critical in extreme cases, such as emergencies. It would suck if your kid got stuck on a train track, traction control making them unable to move, and they got hit by a train. Extreme, but possible.
I'd rather let the kid have free reign over the speedometer than knowingly limit the vehicle.
Now all this is sort of extreme cases, perhaps extreme enough to be bad examples. 80mph should be fast enough for most situations, and even in emergencies, its unlikely to be controllable at 80mph in a city in a hospital rush scenario. If the limit is that high, it should face few issues. Traction control is stupid though. Limiting the speed to 80mph should be enough to deter any kind of street racing behavior.
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
This is Slashdot. You can't post sensible educated posts like this! ;)
.: Max Romantschuk
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.
what's a 5mph bumper? i'm not really a car guy.
An X mph bumper can withstand an accident at X mph and not get damaged.
At the time I was talking about (mid 1980s), 5mph bumpers had been standards but the standards were being reduced. Light trucks (of the kind that tended to be young person's first vehicles) started being offered with NO rear bumper.
It also became popular at this time to sell the so-called "family vans" with paper bumpers. On the day that a friend was driving me to the dealership to get my car, we passed a mess and he told me "say 'ouch' Steve". We had passed a "family van" involved in a low speed accident that looked nearly totalled.
also, wouldn't it be better for people to drive in lighter cars with well-designed crumple zones to absorb impacts rather than cars with big heavy steel frames that add momentum/energy to a collision?
Probably. I'm an engineer, but not that kind of engineer so I can only offer a guess. I can only offer anecdotal evidence that my Ford Escort died to preserve me and I will always have a special place in my heart for it (but mostly to the Ford engineers who designed it to protect me).
Because they will just download their own cars, for free.
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.
No, but I'll bite your nice bit of trolling since you also seem to be one of the unsafe drivers around here.
AC are a nice feature, but should be inoperable while the car is moving, ditto for the radio (in fact as I recall you are not allowed to fiddle with the radio while driving in Britain), same for GPS, seats and map lights.
Clicking from turn signals is needed since you get audible feedback from your action so you don't need to look at the dashboard to see its blinking. Also the clicking actually tells you if one of the lights has gone out since it will be clicking faster - again a safety measure.
Cruise control should be abolished, it just helps the driver falling a sleep - and on top of that people I've seen with cruise control take their foot of both pedals - this means their reaction time is now measured in seconds.
Getting rid of all seats except the drivers is just silly and kinda removes any insightful input you might have wanted to come across. Any passenger in the car should however not be allowed to engage the driver in casual talk.
Not being native English I have no idea what "tilt" or "the tach" is.
oh, i have no doubt that your ford escort saved your life. especially if it was totaled and you survived. i just mean in general more steel doesn't necessarily equate to more safety.
but it's sorta like the prisoner's dilemma. i mean, if you drive a small light vehicle and you get hit by a big heavy SUV, you'll get a lot more messed up than the SUV driver. and that's the scenario a lot of people focus on. but that kind of thinking would lead to everyone driving bigger and heavier vehicles, which would result in deadlier accidents. whereas, if everyone realized that safety has more to do with things like seat belts, ECS, crumple zones, etc. in addition to driving responsibly (and choosing vehicles responsibly), then the roads would be a lot safer, and accidents would be less deadly. but as it stands right now, people who buy big heavy SUVs only thinking of their own safety just ruin things for people driving more sensible vehicles (and puts them in danger).
now, wanting a more protective bumper is perfectly sensible. and there are lot of other ways of protecting yourself on the road that don't create more hazardous driving conditions. that's what concerned car buyers should focus on.
I hope that I am not the only one that is worried by this sort of thing. It seems that we are constantly restricting the freedoms of our children to the point where we are quite possibly damaging them mentally.
Being young means taking silly risks occasionally. Yes, a few will take a risk that is too big and kill or seriously injure themselves and that is very sad but if that means that millions of others can experience life than I think it's a price worth paying.
It will be interesting to see what happens to society as these children grow up and begin to run the show. Will they realize the importance of freedom and cause another 60s style freedom revolution or will they continue the trend to ever more draconian control.
On a personal note though now that I am passed the driving stupidly fast phase of my life I would acutally quite like a GPS based speed limiter on my car so that I never get a speeding fine.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
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
Why limit yourself? Really, why the hell would you limit your choices in a potentially lethal situation?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
Even if that's true, you didn't accelerate to more than 80 mph in the space of an intersection, so the point is moot.
Username taken, please choose another one.
Alternatively parents could try having a mature and trusting relationship with their teenage children...
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
My first car was ... a 1978 Chevette. (And no, it wasn't even *close* to new, so you don't need to get off my lawn).
Simple really ... it wouldn't do 80mph if it was going downhill with a tailwind.
Never did I contemplate trying to do donuts, burnouts, or high speed. There simply wasn't a chance of any of those things being possible.
(We saved that for my friend with the vintage GTO. )
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.
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.
Some water-scooters are using this concept already - you have your own key which allows full speed, and a key for your girlfriend, which limits the max. speed to around 60% of the original top speed.
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.
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.
They shouldn't be allowed to drive at all. Get some real amount of lessons, a strict theoretical exam and a practical exam. Then you can pick up your license. None of my friends have had an accident, and I'd like to think that's because in NL you actually have to show you're a good driver before you can get a license.
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.
"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. "
which is why my motorcycle is only $278 per year!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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.
Being from the UK I'm suspecting more and more that speed cameras actually cause more accidents than they prevent. Drivers all start looking at their speedometers rather than the road and everyone slows down just before they hit the speed camera marks making it dangerous.
Also, sometimes speed cameras are placed in stupid places. One I drive by every day is just before a crossing so woe betide the poor sod who crosses just as someone's not paying attention to the road and staring at their speed instead.
Silly rabbit
The Saturn was a mess (and literally *bounced* off of the Volvo). My car needed a new bumper and a bit of paint*.
Err ... yes? The part of the Saturn that is designed as a crumple zone hit a part of your Volvo that is not designed as a crumple zone. As intended by the designers, the crumple zone of the Saturn ... crumpled, and the read of your Volvo, which isn't designed to crumple, did not. What else should have happened, in your opinion?
In Florida, they could market this to the kids for their parents...
Also what everyone seems to be missing. You brake incredibly quickly, whereas most cars will take 5 to 10 seconds to get from 60 to 80 miles/hour and at least several seconds to gain even 10 miles/hour once you are at highway speed. Not exactly effective for avoiding an accident.
(sorry, no reference on the acceleration stats, just basing it on experience. Mea culpa if anyone has stats stating otherwise.)
I'm sure plenty of us here were driven to learn more about their computers in order to circumvent the restrictions placed upon them. This will encourage youngsters to learn more about how their cars work, and how to "upgrade" them. Finally, the smart kids will be faster!
The numbers actually suggest there are quite significant savings of lives and serious injury.
Maybe they do. However, you can't trust the DFT's figures because they don't take into account regression to the mean.
The 'upgraded' ECU software on my car has a 'Valet Mode' that limits the maximum speed. I can also plug my laptop into my OBD port and set the governor to whatever max speed I want. It's nice to see it as a factory feature though.
Sounds like those would be decent design goals for every Ford vehicle for every Ford driver except for the traction control thing. Of course they could make a button or something that enables/disables traction control. I don't know what it is used for so I'd rather have a toggle rather than kick the feature entirely.
At first I was going to moan about parents regulating their kids driving. This looks more like how the damn cars need to be designed from the get go any way. Kids can race anything almost anywhere. Equal speed limits is just something that makes skill stand out a bit more anyway so this won't have any real effect. O.k. it'll keep the drivers of these vehicles from racing unregulated cars. Heck, I bet even with GPS and all sorts of parental monitoring that kids could find a way to race and if any one gets a red flag on their monitoring or get pulled over for anything than they are automatically disqualified.
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.
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.
This idea of a handicapped key is not new. My jetski has this. It's a great way to make sure your friend doesn't destroy $10K worth of toy his first time riding it.
Flood is a specific exclusion on any standard homeowner's policy because it is a peril that insurers consider to have too high severity and too low frequency to appropriately model. In many flood-prone areas, insurers will refuse to underwrite a property unless the owner purchases separate flood insurance through the appropriate state agency, even if the policy contract language contains a flood exclusion. This is because insurers have been taken to court by insureds who claimed losses that were due to flood, and subsequently won (judges are very sympathetic to insureds), despite such exclusions. The problem with litigating flood losses is twofold: first, it increases the premiums to other insureds (since legal and settlement fees are part of loss adjustment expenses), and second, exposure to flood is not modeled in the rating plan. A very large flood like Katrina could literally bankrupt most small to mid-size insurers, unless there is some sort of reinsurance contract in place that covers such a contingency (but then why would the reinsurer pay if your contract excludes flood?).
Insurers actually have a duty to protect the rest of their insureds from having to bear the burden of those who file claims for losses specifically excluded in the contract. That is the extent of the insurer's reluctance to pay for losses, because if the ratemaking is done correctly, the developed rate should be sufficient to provide for future expected costs. Failure to set the rate sufficiently leads to insolvency, adverse selection, and intervention by the Departments of Insurance, which have the sole power to revoke the insurer's Certificate of Authority (their ability to write business in the state). An insurer does not (and should not) deny claims through a profit motive because this would distort the reserving trends, and risk many other regulatory issues that are frankly not worth the surplus that the insurer or reinsurer has, not to mention it is VERY bad from a competitive standpoint.
Best advice for a concerned parent: buy a POS for your kid's first car. A 3 cylinder Geo Metro comes to mind, this way they will be too embarrassed to showoff, and wont be able to drive over 60 let alone 80.
Speeding up is never a good idea, if the situation is dangerous, chucking more energy into a possible crash will just make it worse.
Never say never. I agree in general but sometimes acceleration is the safest course.
Example1: I looked into my rearview and saw a large car closing quickly on me (with its brakes locked up, sliding sideways).
Example2: Passing a semi truck, almost ahead of it going about 90 and I notice a ladder across my lane ahead. Not enough time to break behind the semi.
Which isn't a good thing since your body is weaker and more expensive than everything else. The point of the crumple zones is to be destroyed to absorb the energy of an impact instead of you. There is metal that actually keeps things from getting to you but that's after the crumple zones.
I'd take a totaled car over massive internal injuries.
This is more like user permissions.
that unlocks the car only after you pass the test (and use the MyKey key as well!). Or will that result in potential drunk drivers beating the crap out of sober passers-by, and get them to breathe into the Breathalyzer..
In England, they recently came out with a report proposing mandatory speed governors, which they called "intelligent speed adaptation". It sounds a lot better than "the government in your car", but the effective year is 2045, making it just outside the current population. Breaking in the "kids" to be used to this is the incremental creep we all need to watch for. After all, "the kids" can't be trusted. "the other guy" also can't be trusted. Once we make that leap of logic, then "you" can't be trusted. ISA...no, thank you.