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.
would have saved me the humiliation of "racing" my parents' taurus
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?
"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."
Is this supposed to be a joke? You're the only one likely be causing any pile ups driving like that. Sheesh.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
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
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.
thinkofthechildren?
You're all doing it wrong. I remember having the family car as a kid. The point wasn't to go 80+. It was to cruise for a while doing 25-40, and then find a place to stop for a couple of hours. As far as long-term life-impact, the family car is as dangerous parked in a nice secluded spot as it is at top speed. The car's meant to get you to the spot where the trouble starts.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
at that speed you could have just gone back in time to avoid the ticket in the first place
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.
Then slow the fuck down for 20 seconds and let the guy go ahead of you. If you pass him and he's so aggressive, he'll be on your tail before you know it. Let him go by instead of escalating the situation by driving more aggressively than him.
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
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
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.
Alternatively parents could try having a mature and trusting relationship with their teenage children...
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
Actually, abs brakes do not really help or hurt your stopping distance in most cases, in laboratory conditions keeping static friction works best but on a dirty road just burning rubber often gets better results. But reducing stopping distance is not even what they are supposed to do. They make you able to steer your car while maximum braking, and even if that costs you a few meters of stopping distance, it's well worth it - something I found out first hand when some nice old lady decided to drive onto the highway right in front of me when I was going ~100km/h.
I know they tell you that the direction of front tires have no effect on where the car is going when the brakes are locked, and I'm pretty sure I actually tested it once or twice at safe speed, but nothing prepares for the horror when you realize that there is someone right in front of you and you are closing in fast, there is a truck coming on the opposite lane, and since you forgot to not to turn the wheel while brakes were locked, you have no idea what direction the tires are facing currently, so if you release the brakes until slow enough, you risk driving off-road or even flipping the car.
Would not buy a car without ABS again.
They make you able to steer your car while maximum braking
mod parent up. I've you've ever attended a safe driving course where you train emergency stops you'll know why you need ABS. Without ABS you'll have to let go of the brakes to steer your car around the obstacle. During our practice runs we killed quite a few virtual deer without ABS, whereas with ABS you just steer around the obstacle while keeping the brakes applied.
BTW if you've never experienced ABS you'd be well advised to try it on a quiet road someday. The first time you're likely to think you broke something as ABS makes a terrible noise. As our instructor said: when you start hearing the grinding sound, kick the brakes even further.
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.