Slashdot Mirror


Chevy Malibu 'Teen Driver' Tech Will Snitch If You Speed

mpicpp writes General Motors wants to help curb teen crashes with a new system that lets parents monitor their kids' driving habits—even when mom and dad aren't actually in the car. Dubbed Teen Drive, the new system will debut in the 2016 Chevy Malibu, offering a bunch of features designed to encourage safe driving. It will, for instance, mute the radio or any device paired with the car when front seat occupants aren't wearing their seatbelts, and give audible and visual warnings when the vehicle is traveling faster than preset speeds. It doesn't end there. Brace yourself, teens, because you might not like this next part too much. The new system also lets parents view a readout of how you drove the car, including how fast you went, how far you drove, and whether any active safety features (like over-speed warnings) were engaged. Parents can also set the radio system's maximum volume to a lower level, and select a maximum speed between 40 and 75 miles per hour, which, if exceeded, will trigger warnings.

224 comments

  1. How About by sexconker · · Score: 0, Troll

    Not letting your shithead teens on the fucking road in the first place?

    1. Re:How About by taustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because then you'll have shithead 20somethings on the road instead, with no parental supervision whatsoever.

      The only way to learn to drive is to drive.

    2. Re:How About by Meshach · · Score: 1

      Not letting your shithead teens on the fucking road in the first place?

      Not letting them on the road seems a little extreme but do they have to have a brand new car? What happened to having a beater to putt around in for the first few years?

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    3. Re:How About by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because then you'll have shithead 20somethings on the road instead, with no parental supervision whatsoever.

      The only way to learn to drive is to drive.

      The difference is teens are much more shithead-like than 20-somethings (not that I haven't noticed the increasing prevalence of 20-something shitheads), and teens are often not held responsible (legally or financially) for their actions (further enabling shithead behavior).

    4. Re:How About by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not letting your shithead teens on the fucking road in the first place?

      Not letting them on the road seems a little extreme but do they have to have a brand new car? What happened to having a beater to putt around in for the first few years?

      Ford Mykey has been around since MY 2010 or so. Limits radio volume, won't allow radio to play if seatbelts not fastened, speed limit at 130km/h (highest speed limit in NA), and speed reminder settable at a lower speed. The telemetry function is new.

      As far as driving new cars... eventually these cars will end up being used cars, and as well in many cases they may be sharing the family car.

    5. Re:How About by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They got greedy, and the spineless, scrupleless generation of "parents" caved.

      Billy gets an F in 6th grade English and still gets a new XBOX with the latest Call of Duty.
      Tammy gets knocked up at 14 and still gets a new iPhone with the latest apps.
      Chris is caught using drugs behind the school and still gets a new car that the parents can't really afford.

    6. Re:How About by invictusvoyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first thing a geek teen is going to find is the "manual override"

    7. Re:How About by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      The second thing a geek teen is going to find are friends !! who have no clue what the words "manual override" mean .

    8. Re:How About by taustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it's like the Ford model that had a similar feature a few years ago, it's controlled by which key you use - regular key, valet key, teenager key. Yeah, most teens could easily swap keys with Mummy or Daddy, but then Mummy and Daddy will start getting warnings when they speed or play the radio too loud.

    9. Re:How About by taustin · · Score: 1

      You clearly have a better class of 20something on your planet than we have here on earth.

    10. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, yes, Billy, Tammy and Chris. I think their last name is "Strawman".

    11. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've got a nephew who superficially seems to be solidly in the spoiled brat category. But the dynamic is more complicated than his parents simply being too nice.

      It's true that they're unable to set meaningful boundaries. But, as a result, they've built up this deep, mostly subconscious, resentment of him. So, in subtle ways, they're actually quite mean to him. When he's around they generally tend to ignore him and when they do interact with him the tone of the interaction is resentful and disparaging to him. If you look below the surface he's very very lonely and frustrated with the situation. But the only way that he knows to get attention is to be so annoying that they eventually snap and yell at him and then feel bad and by him some more toys.

      Part of the solution is to set boundaries for him. But the problem won't be solved unless they can set boundaries in a way allows him to feel included and appreciated within his family. As long as he feels lonely and frustrated, he going to continue to misbehave.

      What needs to happen is for his parents to form enough of an emotional connection with him that they have the influence they need to set the boundaries. If he's thinking that he really likes being part of his family and that they really take care of him then the prospect of crossing a boundary and being distanced from the family will have a strong influence. On the other hand, if he feels like he's already a stranger in his own family and everyone already hates him then he has nothing to lose by crossing the boundaries.

      The key to solving the problem is less about boundaries, per se, and more about his parents really working hard to find little opportunities to be nice to him and build up an emotional connection - little things often - and to also give him compassionate guidance. So that he eventually values his place in the family and understands how to maintain his place in the family through positive behaviors.

    12. Re:How About by westlake · · Score: 1

      The only way to learn to drive is to drive.

      I can see this tech being useful for elderly drivers, the chronically ill or disabled. It is not always easy to see clearly when someone you care for needs to surrender their license.

    13. Re:How About by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Who says that this car necessarily belongs to the teenage driver? It may belong to the parent, and they just give the kids their own keys which activate these features. I didn't own a car for the first several years that I was driving, and just borrowed one of my parents' vehicles (a Honda Civic stickshift or an old full-sized Ford van). If I had a teenager about to start driving and wanted a new car for the family, this would be an attractive feature for when they started borrowing the car.

      Also, people seem overly-preoccupied about these being new cars. Well, naturally any new feature is going to be introduced first in new cars. After a few years, guess what? This feature will also be available in used cars!

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    14. Re:How About by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a growing intolerance for giving people the space to learn because 'safety' has become more important than exposure to graduated life lessons. Driving is one of them. Not letting teens drive just gives us all a bunch of 20 year olds who can't drive.

    15. Re:How About by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      Not letting them on the road seems a little extreme but do they have to have a brand new car? What happened to having a beater to putt around in for the first few years?

      Giving them an old beater doesn't really solve the problem from the standpoint of the rest of society. A jackass driving a car from 1996 can do just as much damage to pedestrians, cyclists, other cars, and other people as he could driving a car from 2016.

      Heck, the 1996 vehicle may encourage more reckless behavior (because the jackass driving doesn't care about the car, and isn't afraid of a few scratches and dents). The 1996 vehicle may be more likely to be involved in a collision even if driven the same way as the late-model vehicle (since safety equipment and systems may be absent, outdated, worn, or broken). The 1996 vehicle may be more dangerous in a collision (predating modern standards for protecting both its occupants and other vehicles or pedestrians).

      I'm also a bit surprised by the assumption that so many people here seem to be making that this car will be the teen's own car, or that the teen must be the principal driver. I would imagine that the much more likely scenario is that this will be Mom's or Dad's car (or just the lone family vehicle), and Junior is allowed to drive it from time to time. Mom and Dad also don't want to do all their own driving in a crappy car just to make sure that Junior suffers sufficiently; these systems add some more teeth to the "We'll let you drive the family car, but we have our eyes on you."

      Besides, this year's brand new car is next decade's beater anyway. Might as well have a feature that adds value for the resale market.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    16. Re:How About by joelito_pr · · Score: 1

      You keep finding uses for this until someone decides that everyone should have it.

    17. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heck, the 1996 vehicle may encourage more reckless behavior (because the jackass driving doesn't care about the car, and isn't afraid of a few scratches and dents

      1996, 2006 or 2016, unless a kid buys a car or whatever with his own money, time or blood, he has no interest, no pride of ownership. I rent properties, and see my tenants do things to my property that no sane homeowner would ever do to their own. Why? Beyond their security deposit, they don't give a shit. They don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

      Make the kid accountable, and things will change. Pay his own part of the payment, pay for his own insurance, pay his own gas, pay for his own tires, oil changes, etc. Guaranteed they'll operate it differently.

    18. Re:How About by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      If it's like the Ford model that had a similar feature a few years ago, it's controlled by which key you use - regular key, valet key, teenager key. Yeah, most teens could easily swap keys with Mummy or Daddy, but then Mummy and Daddy will start getting warnings when they speed or play the radio too loud.

      only if the teen isn't smart enough to only use the parent key to deactivate the limits on the teen key then return the parent key.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    19. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's like the Ford model that had a similar feature a few years ago, it's controlled by which key you use - regular key, valet key, teenager key. Yeah, most teens could easily swap keys with Mummy or Daddy, but then Mummy and Daddy will start getting warnings when they speed or play the radio too loud.

      And when a generation of car drivers grows up with a car that acts like an appliance - and Millennials, having other means of communicating with their friends that don't require physical travel, are already a generation that's never really gotten into cars the ways Boomers and Xers did - the auto executives of 2025-2035 will wonder why nobody wants to buy a faster, more powerful, or better-handling motor vehicle.

      The answer will be that unless they have a friend with a Tesla, they'll never have experienced the notion that driving can be fun, and that $10/day for a RoboUber account gets the job done just as well as a NannyCar.

    20. Re:How About by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because then you'll have shithead 20somethings on the road instead, with no parental supervision whatsoever.

      The only way to learn to drive is to drive.

      The difference is teens are much more shithead-like than 20-somethings (not that I haven't noticed the increasing prevalence of 20-something shitheads), and teens are often not held responsible (legally or financially) for their actions (further enabling shithead behavior).

      Actually, numerous studies have shown that teen drivers are no worse than inexperienced drivers of any age. That's what prompted the gov't here in Ontario to change the licensing rules some time ago so that after your probationary period (the first 2-5 years that you have your license) you have to take a second road test, where they basically test how experienced you are (based on how you handle the car, etc.) to get your full license. The problem was in the past that many teens simply didn't drive during their probation period (many didn't have access to a car, for instance) and then they got their full unrestricted license with basically no driving experience whatsoever. They've now plugged that loophole and it is pretty much impossible to pass the second test without lots of driving experience.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    21. Re:How About by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The difference is teens are much more shithead-like than 20-somethings (not that I haven't noticed the increasing prevalence of 20-something shitheads), and teens are often not held responsible (legally or financially) for their actions (further enabling shithead behavior).

      It's a vicious cycle where the more sheltered and unprepared for adulthood they get, the longer you want to wait to give them the freedom and responsibilities needed to grow the f*ck up. And yes, a car is often an enabler for a lot of other activities that are helpful in that respect. Just after WWII we had boys as young as 14 sign on to go to sea for months at a time with no mom or dad to look after them. They grew up, fast. Maybe not the best idea today since you'd want an education, but for example this winter we had a dog sled race here. Teens as young as 15 responsible for their own dog sled team over 400km, they got caught in a big storm and had to dig in and eventually rescued. I'd be shit scared if I was 15, alone, in the mountains, with a storm blowing and there was no one else to rely on. Of course they were prepared and not exactly our average teens, but most teens could handle a lot more responsibility than they do.

      I'm not going to pretend that I'm innocent there either, not taking any responsibility is convenient. You have to be pushed a little to stand on your own, participate in chores, make your own choices and not least of which dealing with the consequences. Like using your allowance for ice cream and realizing you don't have any left for candy on Saturday. If you manage to cry your way into having candy anyway, you're not learning. It might seem kind to you then and there, but it's not doing you good in the long run. The same with parents that always drop everything whenever their kids want something, they must to respect that you have a life too and not a slave that'll come at their whim. Put them in a car and they'll still expect the world to revolve around them and is reckless about the consequences because they expect someone to clean up the mess they made.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    22. Re:How About by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      In my day, we didn't have friends.

    23. Re:How About by sinij · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nonsense, "a friend" is role-neutral name for group member or dungeon master. We had all kinds of friends - mages, rogues, clerics...

    24. Re:How About by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. There's plenty of space to learn - and now there's recourse for abusing the freedom they've been given. The car doesn't shut off, the parents are required to remove driving privileges... if my kids want to drive my car, there are rules. I already told my son (months away from getting his license) that I will never buy him a car - I will by myself a car and let him use it as long as he's obeying the rules. He didn't complain... I don't owe him a car. It's a privilege. If he doesn't want to be monitored, he can pay for his own car and his own insurance... it's just that simple.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    25. Re:How About by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      The only way to learn to drive is to drive.

      I agree - and this technology will give more parents the peace of mind to hand over the keys to their kids. I only see good coming from this.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    26. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...reckless about the consequences because they expect someone to clean up the mess they made.

      Perhaps for the 1% - but then that's the rational choice for them because they genuinely can afford to have some else clean up their messes. They can genuinely afford to take more risks than everyone else.

      For remaining 99%, though, most risky behavior comes from not being aware of ways to satisfy their fundamental human needs without taking massive risks. From the outside, it's obvious that most people can live simple secure lives that comfortably satisfy their basic needs without taking on massive risks.

      People aren't perfectly rational and omniscient. If they were, no one would ever choose a losing lottery number - but the reality is that pretty much everyone chooses the losing lottery number on a regular basis.

      It would be nice if the 1% could see a bit more of the consequences of their actions. Roughly 20,000 children die of poverty every day. The 1% could almost eliminate poverty if they wanted to. It would be nice if they could see a few children die of poverty up close and personal - to give them something to think about the next time they use their control of the world's resources to produce more frivolous luxury products for themselves.

      But for everyone else the key is to help them understand their fundamental human needs and to satisfy those needs in ways that are not dangerous to themselves and others.

    27. Re:How About by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, you've presented three scenarios of young adults who, at worst, need some form of help from the more mature people responsible for their care, but you've also portrayed them as somehow deserving of either irrelevant punishment or bribery. Should Billy be punished for poor performance in school, or helped to understand and appreciate his education? The worst case for Tammy's judgment is that she did not understand the consequences of actions she otherwise engaged consensually, should she be deprived of a phone that has literally nothing to do with that? Chris evidently was not driving while getting high, so I'm not even sure why you care unless you're jealous. Or should those privileges be dangled in front of them only if they behave in a way you approve?

      If this is truly where you're at, do yourself a favor. Visualize Billy's, Tammy's and Chris's future debt and complete paralysis in the face of it. Don't worry, it doesn't make a difference what they do now or hot their parents raise them. They're fucked, and they didn't get a choice. It'll make your schadenfreude feel better.

    28. Re:How About by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      45 seconds? But I want it now!

    29. Re:How About by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Actually, numerous studies have shown that teen drivers are no worse than inexperienced drivers of any age.

      If the studies are numerous, why are the citations nonexistent?

    30. Re:How About by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      This has less to do with "shit head 20 somethings" then the modern trajectory of keeping tabs on your children in any and all circumstance. Compare the ideas presented in this story with the recent stories of parents getting Child Protective Services called on them for letting their children walk home unattended. This is just an extension to the idea that children (or young adults) can't be trusted to act properly on their own, and must be under parental--or failing that, state--surveillance at all times.

      Somethings gone horribly awry in our society when we can't even trust a young adult to act according to traffic laws and this technology is simply a proxy for the idea that children/young adults need to be under constant supervision, lest they have the temerity to develop an autonomous identity.

      How in the hell did civilization ever manage to develop as far as it has without children and young adults being under the constant watchful eye of parents or other authority figures? If you find yourself asking why people aren't more concerned with shit like the NSA's surveillance, look at stories like this, where people are encourage to distrust their own flesh and blood to be able to make responsible decisions! How much longer until we're deluged with stories about chipping children, much like we chip pets, in order to ensure they're safe at all times!

      The security state flourishes in this country because we want so much to be safe that we'll give anything and everything for even a slight increase in the feeling that we (and our children) are safe from anything and everything, thanks to the valiant efforts of our security services and corporations.

      Let's not pretend for a second that the companies pushing this technology give a flying fuck about the safety of your kids, they want more data, more control, more ways to encroach on areas that used to be free from opportunities for advertisement and the wholesale monetization of human existence. You don't need to know the exact location of your 20 year old kid, you don't need the peace of mind that they're not speeding and sowing chaos. You want it because you've bought into the idea that everything and everyone is out to get you and yours and only the crushing embrace of the modern security apparatus will grant it to you.

      Congratulations, you know where your kid is at all times, and in the process crushed the humanity out of them in preparation for the cradle to grave security state surveillance they'll be subjected to.

      Good fucking job America.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    31. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relax. Tracking excessive speed and controlling loud music just holds them accountable, giving parents more tools to protect and train their kids. This tech doesn't keep them from driving 100mph or mudding through a corn field. Frankly, I wish it would make a hands free call to dear old dad and allow me to remotely govern the engine in my damn car when they speed too much. Maybe it will improve accident statistics and lower insurance costs by the time my kids are old enough to drive.

    32. Re:How About by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      And the third thing is going to be the security state's jackboot crushing their neck for subverting "lawful" surveillance of all human activity. In all likelihood the parents will be held equally responsible for their children's terrorist activity.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    33. Re:How About by DocHoncho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My kids, who just turned 8, are unlikely to even learn how to drive. They'll live in a world where all cars are self-driving, and which report all location data to the security services for National Security. We'll be sold on the convenience of self-driving cars, in return for the manufacturers knowing where every car is at every moment. Since self-driving cars will be leased, and not sold (even if they were sold, vehicle registration takes care of the identification), they'll know, more or less, who is driving where and when. Those who drive themselves will be viewed with suspicion, and likely treated as subversive actors. Only a criminal would care if there's a record of their every move.

      Before you shrug it off as "well so what if Ford knows where went?" Consider that the security services will certainly have complete access to all of that data, for National Security purposes, of course.

      This isn't "tin foil hat" territory any more, it's standard fucking practice.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    34. Re:How About by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      It isn't just safety in a driving sense, safety has become an all encompassing ideal. Life isn't good unless you and your own are safe at all times, from all things, even from themselves. Just look at all the baby boomers pushing the encroachment of CPS (CHild Protective Services) into all aspects of parenthood? Don't you DARE let your children roam free (exactly how those baby boomers did), or the authorities will descend on you with full fury. Don't you DARE let your young adults experience even a small amount of freedom from constant supervision, make sure they're SAFE at all times by keeping tabs on their movements and implement technological solutions that serve to wrest any and all autonomy from them.

      Safety trumps EVERYTHING.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    35. Re:How About by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      I agree - and this technology will give more parents the peace of mind to hand over the keys to their kids. I only see good coming from this.

      While simultaneously wresting any sense of agency from them. How perfectly modern.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    36. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My kids, who just turned 8, are unlikely to even learn how to drive. They'll live in a world where all cars are self-driving, and which report all location data to the security services for National Security. We'll be sold on the convenience of self-driving cars, in return for the manufacturers knowing where every car is at every moment. Since self-driving cars will be leased, and not sold (even if they were sold, vehicle registration takes care of the identification), they'll know, more or less, who is driving where and when. Those who drive themselves will be viewed with suspicion, and likely treated as subversive actors. Only a criminal would care if there's a record of their every move. Only a criminal would care if there's a record of their every move.

      You're right. For better or worse, you're right.

      Aside from the obligatory re-read of the short-story A Nice Morning Drive accompanied by Red Barchetta, I will also recommend The Last Chase. (The MST3K version is better than the origial!) The funniest thing about the movie is that after the fuel crisis of the late 70s and the dour pronouncements coming out of Washington DC during the Carter era, by the time the movie got made in 1981, California was seen as the last bastion of freedom / car culture. And that ladies and germs, is what a real paradigm shift looks like.

      Just 30 years ago, California had enough rebellious disruptors who loved their hot-rods that it was seen as the last bastion of private motor vehicle transit against the forces of grey-haired, grey-suited centralized controllers in DC relentlessly optimizing public transit for fuel efficiency and ecological harmony. Today, it's the grey-haired, grey-suited centralized controllers in DC arguing for unlimited emissions, and the only people proposing a future in which transit is faster, safer, and more fuel efficient are... well, a different set of people, but they're still in California, and they're still disruptors of the existing order.

    37. Re:How About by burtosis · · Score: 2

      All that tin foil hat crap is likely true, we already have automated plate readers tracking vehicles today. Most people have cell phones and all of those are tracked. However the tech for actual city driving autonomous cars is more like 30-50 years out. 10 years from now we could have specialized freeway autonomous driving, but even that is unlikely given the public backlash when the first baby is killed by a machine mistake no human would make.

      If your kids never learn to drive its likely either because they live in a dense urban area with good public transit or are too rich to drive themselves.

    38. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My kids, who just turned 8, are unlikely to even learn how to drive. They'll live in a world where all cars are self-driving

      Do you honestly think not only that self-driving cars (which are currently -very- limited in the conditions they can drive in, the situations they can handle, the speeds at which they are safe, etc.) will be advanced enough to totally replace human-driven cars within 8 years, but also that legislation will catch up and be updated to allow "operation" of self-driven cars by unlicensed drivers? You have a laughably naive view both of technology and legislation.

    39. Re:How About by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      If your kids never learn to drive its likely either because they live in a dense urban area with good public transit or are too rich to drive themselves.

      Well I can assure you neither of those are true, but if Google and Tesla are to be believed self driving cars are much nearer to reality than not.

      These automatic driving features are already being rolled out by premium brands like Mercedes or BMW. I saw a commercial last night about a Mercedes that could stop itself if necessary. That's not to mention the self-parking features being added to the high-end models. Some of those features probably even find their way to the mid-range brands like Buick.

      The self-driving car isn't going to be a "totalistic" phenomena, we're going to see more and more autonomous features added into "regular" cars, until at some point they become more autonomous than not. Perhaps you can press a button to take manual control, but the autonomous car revolution is upon us and cannot be stopped.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    40. Re:How About by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Autonmous features are already finding in their way into high end models, as we speak. Here's a self driving Mercedes. They're also advertising features such as automatic stopping of the vehicle if some obstruction appears in the road. Many mid to high end brands also advertise self-parking features, which would envolve many of the same "smarts" as needed for the car to drive itself. I'm no sage, I don't know how long it's going to take for autonomous cars to be mainstream. But given that these features are already appearing in high-end vehicles, it's only a matter of time before your crummy Ford Fiesta can do the same thing. And it's only a relatively small step from there to fully autonomous vehicles.

      I would agree, however, that the legislature is going to drag their feet about legalizing these sorts of autonomous cars. I honestly don't know if my daughters are going to need to learn to drive or not, but a part of me can't help but feel like they probably wont. We may not be experiencing the technological singularity, but you've got to admit that the pace of technological development is moving faster and faster. It's folly to predict exactly what the future holds. That being said, I have little doubt that whatever forms the new technology takes, the desire for the modern security state to retain, or gain, control over unprecedented aspects of human existence will not be easily stopped.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    41. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken as one who obviously who has never raised offspring.

    42. Re:How About by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      You're right. If I were a parent, I would know that it's important to punish people who need guidance and compassion.

      Thanks, I'll pass.

    43. Re:How About by houghi · · Score: 1

      People DIE because they do not have enough experience. I clearly know the difference how I was driving when I just had a licence and 2 years later.

      Having a speed limiter would have been a lot safer for others on the road. Those two first years I was dangerous.
      After two tyears I had enough experience AND enough wisdom to not speed that much. And I do not mind that the driver hits a tree. That is just bad luck for the family and friends.

      And I learned driving shift in Europe with a teacher.From what I hear from American friends, it is a multitude better then what you get in the USofA. After 20 hours I had my drivers licence and I thought I could drive. After 20 hours you DO NOT have the experience to react correctly in all situations. You do not have the exprience to know how your car will react. You do not have a quick insight into traffic situations. You will oversee things that are obvious to more experienced drivers.

      I was lucky enough to 'only' drive into a house because I was speeding. Lot of money I had to pay and a great lesson.

      Slowing down (to the legal limit) is a must. However when you are 18, you think that you will live forever. You think you know everything. That combined with the ability to drive fast is deadly. Being forced to drive slower in moms car will save lives. It will also give them time to get the experience to learn and then when they are older have more experince and will react better in different situations.

      That does not mean they will suddenly drive slow. I know peole who are in their 60-ies and speed and drive drunk.

      What it does is not stop making assholes, it just helps build experience at a safer speed.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    44. Re:How About by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Back in your day, the friendships went downhill both ways?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    45. Re:How About by anegg · · Score: 1

      Actually, numerous studies have shown that teen drivers are no worse than inexperienced drivers of any age. That's what prompted the gov't here in Ontario to change the licensing rules some time ago so that after your probationary period (the first 2-5 years that you have your license) you have to take a second road test, where they basically test how experienced you are (based on how you handle the car, etc.) to get your full license.

      That actually seems to make sense. Any data regarding accident trends following implementation?

    46. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, how do you teach someone something if you're always giving them what they want? Should students always be allowed to pick their GPA at the end of the semester? Should all the competitors at a wrestling meet get the same trophy? Sure an iphone doesn't have much to do with "not getting knocked up", but material rewards are a pretty standard thing in today's world. "Jimmy, get that A in algebra and I'll get you that PS4 for your birthday!"

      What's this scenario where you're giving "guidance and compassion" to the kid smoking dope at school, rather than simply depriving him of a reward (car family really couldn't afford) likely intended to specifically reward good behavior, rather than to simply help with getting to school and groceries (car family can afford). What do you do? Get a group together, light some incense, and encircle him for three straight hours, mumbling joo joo? Get him a nice long massage? Make sure he gets that happy ending he always wanted? Seriously, how the bloody hell do you think you're going to get anywhere with that kid, or are you just one of those that points and says "that's punishment, it must be wrong", with absolutely no practical solutions besides adding shit like Common Core to the curriculum and complaining about how someone failed them a long time ago?

      Here's a hint about parenting: it's continuously responding to weird shit you can't prepare for. Just like not everyone learns the same, not everyone responds to reward systems the same. Either give parents the leeway they need to respond to the weird shit their kids do, or quit blaming them for every damn thing little Timmy does that pisses you off. You just can't have it both ways.

      My advice - take the reward away now, and give him this "guidance and compassion" later. No matter what, he's going to be processing stuff in his own head in his own way, and it's pretty important that rewards get tied to behavior, and aren't just consistent things in his life no matter what. That's simply a setup for failure.

    47. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents used to have a US spec VW beetle, built in ~1972. That one had a super annoying "Fasten Seatbelt" sign and buzzer installed that made such a ruckus there would have been no pint in having the radio on onless you had the seatbelts on as long as any front seat was occupied and the ignition on.

    48. Re:How About by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      They will likely get their first car in about 10 years or so time. Will self-driving cars be ubiquitous by then? I don't think so, because the car development lifecycle doesn't move that quickly. There will be some self-driving cars in 10 years time, as a premium option, but it won't have made its way down to the budget range of models.

    49. Re:How About by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Speed governors are not going to ruin a generation. When I learned to drive, my speed governor was called a "crappy engine". My first car did 0-60 mph (~0-100 km/h) in a blistering 16 seconds if the air conditioning was off - much longer if it was on. It wouldn't do 75 mph unless it was headed down a mountain. But it had four wheels, it ran, and it was mine, and that was enough.

    50. Re:How About by r_naked · · Score: 0

      First I would never do this to my child. It is my opinion that you raise your children correctly and then you can trust them.

      With that said, all a parent has to do is hide a GPS somewhere that the kid knows nothing about. Compare GPS to what the car has to say, and if they differ, then they know the car has been tampered with -- BUSTED!

      I feel sorry for any parents that feel the need to use such methods....

      -- Brian

      --
      -- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
    51. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you mean "North America" when you use, "NA".

      There are areas in Texas you can currently move a vehicle faster than 130 kilometres per hour legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_by_jurisdiction#80_and_85_mph_limits

      Also, during a certain period, Montana didn't have speed limits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_by_jurisdiction#No_speed_limit

    52. Re:How About by pepty · · Score: 1

      My kids, who just turned 8, are unlikely to even learn how to drive. They'll live in a world where all cars are self-driving.

      That's a bit of hyperbole. They will certainly have the option to buy self driving cars, but it's unlikely that everything else will be phased out and off the road within ~5 years of self driving cars being introduced.

    53. Re:How About by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Waaaa Waaaaa Waaaaa, I can't find a job on my own so mommy and daddy shoud by one for me! FTFY

    54. Re:How About by pepty · · Score: 1

      are already a generation that's never really gotten into cars the ways Boomers and Xers did - the auto executives of 2025-2035 will wonder why nobody wants to buy a faster, more powerful, or better-handling motor vehicle.

      It's not just lack of interest. It was a lot cheaper for young boomers and Xers to buy cars: they generally didn't have 2-3x their starting salary locked up in college loans. The boomers didn't even have to go to college.

      The answer will be that unless they have a friend with a Tesla, they'll never have experienced the notion that driving can be fun, and that $10/day for a RoboUber account gets the job done just as well as a NannyCar.

      My guess is that it will skip a generation. Sort of like vinyl records.

    55. Re:How About by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean "North America" when you use, "NA".

      There are areas in Texas you can currently move a vehicle faster than 130 kilometres per hour legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_by_jurisdiction#80_and_85_mph_limits

      Also, during a certain period, Montana didn't have speed limits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_by_jurisdiction#No_speed_limit

      If by areas you mean a single 41 mile section with an 85MPH limit on the whole continent (per your first link). And historical speed limits are irrelevant.

    56. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by areas you mean a single 41 mile section with an 85MPH limit on the whole continent (per your first link). And historical speed limits are irrelevant.

      Looks like the poster was trying to offer you some insight into something you apparently didn't know about. The fact is, the highest speed limit in North America is not 130 kph.

      Additionally the poster makes the point that historically they have not been limited to 130 kph either, in far larger areas than a 41 mile length of road in Texas.

      It appears that speed limits have undergone a lot of change over the last few decades in the US, and are now legislated differently in every single state.

      These technologies, including Ford Mykey suddenly look rather limiting. Hopefully it is under the user's control, or can be upgraded.

    57. Re:How About by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      I'm just glad as hell I grew up before all this tech was so pervasive.

      No cell phones meant your parents couldn't track you, and Lordy....I'd have long lost a car if they'd not only tracked me but monitored my speed. UGH!!

      At least we were free to be kids back then, and learn from our actions, sure there were some bad times and consequences, but that's a part of growing up!!

      So glad there wasn't a fucking camera EVERYWHERE I went as a kid and a teen....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    58. Re:How About by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how do you teach someone something if you're always giving them what they want?

      These don't have anything to do with each other. I don't learn more when things are taken away from me, do you? It certainly doesn't give me any guidance about how to have safe sex, or how to make smart decisions about drugs. Those are not things that deserve punishment, they deserve mature and useful education and emotional involvement.

      Should students always be allowed to pick their GPA at the end of the semester? Should all the competitors at a wrestling meet get the same trophy?

      In what world do you think "guidance and compassion" equals destroying the meaning of achievement?

      Sure an iphone doesn't have much to do with "not getting knocked up", but material rewards are a pretty standard thing in today's world.

      Seems to be working just fine. Right?

      What's this scenario where you're giving "guidance and compassion" to the kid smoking dope at school

      I would teach about the risks and rewards of different kinds of experimentation, the differences between law and morality, provide insights into where I've made mistakes and how I dealt with them, and set very clear expectations about when I will or will not consider usage a problem deserving intervention. That intervention would never result in unrelated punishment. This is all about direct involvement in real education about serious matters, rather than a convoluted risk-reward system that doesn't impart any wisdom or prepare the child for future decisions.

      rather than simply depriving him of a reward (car family really couldn't afford) likely intended to specifically reward good behavior, rather than to simply help with getting to school and groceries (car family can afford).

      I'm not sure I understand your meaning, but I would not buy my kid a car to reward behavior, and I would not give a child any kind of gift and then take it away as punishment.

      Get a group together, light some incense, and encircle him for three straight hours, mumbling joo joo? Get him a nice long massage? Make sure he gets that happy ending he always wanted?

      Not sure who or what you're attacking here, but I never suggested anything like this.

      Seriously, how the bloody hell do you think you're going to get anywhere with that kid

      By caring, encouraging mutual trust and respect, and responding to problems and risks with sane, relevant solutions that I can explain clearly. In the event that the problem is that the child has actually done harm, the solution may well be a form of punishment that's relevant and appropriate.

      or are you just one of those that points and says "that's punishment, it must be wrong", with absolutely no practical solutions besides adding shit like Common Core to the curriculum and complaining about how someone failed them a long time ago?

      More nonsense strawman attacks. Really not sure where this stuff is coming from.

      Just like not everyone learns the same, not everyone responds to reward systems the same.

      You're attacking me because I don't think taking away a cell phone has anything to do with educating a child about making safe and smart sex choices. What adult would think that makes sense? But you expect a teenager to handle it better?

      quit blaming them for every damn thing little Timmy does that pisses you off

      Still don't know what you're talking about. Did you mistake me for someone else?

      My advice - take the reward away now, and give him this "guidance and compassion" later.

      Well, that will have pretty predictable effects.

      rewards get tied to behavior, and aren't just consistent things in his life no matter what

    59. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Driving is a privilege. If you can't manage the privilege of driving other people's property, then it's pretty obvious that you can't handle your own car.

    60. Re:How About by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Tammy gets knocked up at 14 and still gets a new iPhone with the latest apps.

      What's wrong with that? iPhone 6 Maps is punishment enough for anything.

    61. Re:How About by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You're certainly an entitled fuck aren't you?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    62. Re:How About by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Instead of guessing that 18 sounds about right, maybe we could use a little science instead?
      I started at 14, as you could legally learn to drive then, and apply for a full license on your 15th birthday. Times have changed, we now know the human brain doesn't fully develop until the early to mid 20's, so it can be argued your brain is better equipped to handle the responsibility better the older you are.

    63. Re:How About by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      My kids, who just turned 8, are unlikely to even learn how to drive. They'll live in a world where all cars are self-driving,

      And they'll have flying cars too! And invisibility and time machines!

    64. Re:How About by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Well for me, science is more important. And the science says people under 25 are a lot more likely to die or kill on our roads. It has nothing to do with experience and more to do with human brain development which doesn't mature until the early 20's.

    65. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1994 I went to a wedding in New Mexico with my then girlfriend. The rental car company turned me down because I had two accidents on my California DMV record. The fact that both were the other driver's fault was not recorded, so I was SOL. My girlfriend, who had a clean record because she did not own a car and rarely drove, and who, when she did drive long distances, had a tendency to get sleepy, rented the car and did all the driving. We didn't get into an accident, but we both would have felt safer with me doing at least some of the driving. Driving experience counts for a LOT. It's easy to keep your record clean, at any age, if you don't drive.

    66. Re:How About by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [begin sarcasm] I totally agree with you. Freedom is also a privilege.[end sarcasm] And clearly that isn't something you've earned yet. Come back when you've learned to value liberty. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

      We need to eliminate drivers licenses, license plates, and other forms of identification, and give kids back the freedom nobody should have ever been denied in the first place. This country was founded on freedom and liberties. While we may never had had this due to objections by the less principled and FUD of those desiring ever greater control- psychopaths like yourself.

  2. Yeah because you know... by kuzb · · Score: 1

    ...you let your teenage kid drive your brand new 2016 car.

    In the real world, most would typically have to endure the initial "proving grounds" shitbox of a car first.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re: Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, kids are more spoiled than ever. Most of them ARE driving new cars.

    2. Re:Yeah because you know... by Jax+Omen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Today's brand new 2016 car is next decade's shitbox old 2016 car.

    3. Re: Yeah because you know... by Jax+Omen · · Score: 1

      Most *people* aren't driving new cars, let alone most kids.

    4. Re:Yeah because you know... by taustin · · Score: 1

      You've clearly never lived among The Beautiful People of southern California, where a lot of kids would literally murder their parents in their sleep if they didn't get a brand new car for their 16th birthday.

    5. Re:Yeah because you know... by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Entirely true. It would just make more sense if they developed technology that could be retrofitted in to any car instead of just their newest line.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    6. Re:Yeah because you know... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

      Yes lets take inexperienced drivers and put them in an unreliable vehicle. What a BRILLIANT plan.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    7. Re:Yeah because you know... by cjb658 · · Score: 1

      There's probably an app for that. Granted it would be easy enough to just turn your phone off, but it would be pretty suspicious if data wasn't getting logged.

    8. Re:Yeah because you know... by Jax+Omen · · Score: 3, Informative

      If car manufacturers did sensible things we wouldn't have had to bail them out a few years ago.

      They love vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence as much as gadget manufacturers do.

    9. Re:Yeah because you know... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Hell, in Southern California we have kids who murder other kids and off themselves because the brand new BMW, large allowance, college tuition, and rent weren't enough.

    10. Re:Yeah because you know... by kuzb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Old doesn't necessarily mean unsafe or unreliable. Plenty of people drive 10 year old cars that are not putting them in danger.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    11. Re:Yeah because you know... by taustin · · Score: 1

      And let's not go in to give your 16 year old a boob job for her birthday, eh?

    12. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you let your teenage kid drive your brand new 2016 car.

      As others have pointed out, what's a new feature today will be a universal feature tomorrow.

      And I do think that there needs to be a change in mindset about speeding. When people first learn to drive, they're generally not comfortable even going as fast as the speed limit. So they often get criticized for driving below the speed limit - which creates a mindset that they need to drive as fast as possible - even at speeds that feel unsafe. So somehow we need to change the mindset that good driving is about driving as fast as possible - right to the limit of your fear - and hoping that your "reaction time" will somehow save you from the inevitable accident. Maybe technology that gets teens in trouble for driving over the speed limit will help counteract this mindset and maybe it won't. But it's worth a try. Even if it doesn't change the mindset then at least it may save a few teens from being killed in car accidents - which is tragic when it happens.

      And, when it comes to teens driving new cars, for families who can afford it, I'd much prefer they try to keep their kids safe by putting them in newer cars rather than larger cars. A small new car increases the safety of the teen without decreasing everyone else's safety. A large old car increases the teen's safety at the expense of everyone else.

    13. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The car won't be new at some point, you cocksmack.

    14. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a Chevy. It's already a shitbox.

    15. Re:Yeah because you know... by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      Not just A brand new car, but it has to be a NICE brand new car. Mustang, Camaro, BMW, etc.

      A brand new Toyota Corolla? As IF! Mom, why do you hate me?

      Living outside of California, I was thrilled to be granted access to the family vehicle (and would be thrilled whether it was a minivan, or a Kia Rio), later I was thrilled to have to opportunity to inherit it for my exclusive use (as it reached the shitbox phase in life).

    16. Re:Yeah because you know... by fizzup · · Score: 1

      Good point. You are a genius. Chevrolet should have added these features in 2006. That way, they wouldn't be stupidly adding them to a brand new car. Wait, what?

    17. Re:Yeah because you know... by jonwil · · Score: 2

      Such things already exist. Devices that plug into the OBD2 port on a vehicle and monitor/log all the relavent information already exist. Some combine this with GPS tracking (to log where the car is as well as how its being driven).

      Plenty of options for parents to monitor how their teenager is driving and whether they are driving safely or not, this just happens to be one actually built into the car (and capable of doing more than just logging as a result)

    18. Re:Yeah because you know... by jonwil · · Score: 2

      Many older Japanese cars like Corollas, Pulsars, Civics etc are VERY reliable and still good choices even today (in terms of the likelihood of things going wrong and needing to be fixed) as long as they haven't been written off (crashed and rebuilt and re-registered) and have been properly maintained.

    19. Re:Yeah because you know... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      And does that seem like the kind of POS junker the GP was talking about?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    20. Re:Yeah because you know... by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      Entirely true. It would just make more sense if they developed technology that could be retrofitted in to any car instead of just their newest line.

      There are a fucking million of them but, what good is a device that goes for around $100 when you can sell [announcer voice] aaaaaaaa new caaaaaaar! [/announcer voice].

    21. Re:Yeah because you know... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      It's been done for decades for more than 90% of the population, Let me guess you were just born yesterday and you live in beverly hills.

      less than 1% of new drivers have a new car. 90% drive a shotbox that is barely running. Most dont have a nice trust fund that pays them $4500 a week like you do.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    22. Re:Yeah because you know... by l810c · · Score: 1

      Older Corollas and Civics(and many others), Yes. Very reliable and safe cars.

      Pulsar(Hell no!) Dad bought my brother one that was 3 years old. Always in the shop. You would not need this monitor on the Pulsar, they were absolute slugs. So much in fact that I consider them dangerous. It was such a slug that when driving you were unable to Avoid trouble. I actually(on my brothers behalf) took he and dad on a test drive to prove to dad it was dangerously slow and unresponsive.

    23. Re:Yeah because you know... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If car manufacturers did sensible things we wouldn't have had to bail them out a few years ago.

      You mean, like, not hire the UAW to run their fabrication for them? Yeah, that would have gone a long way to avoiding that bailout.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    24. Re:Yeah because you know... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's more complicated than 'blame the UAW'. The US auto industry is rotten clear through. Or at least GM. I don't work for an OEM supplier for the other 'big two' to have actual data to know, but it seems that way.

    25. Re:Yeah because you know... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's now 'butt job' because the fetishes have been updated.

    26. Re:Yeah because you know... by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Except there's no positive purpose of this technology outside of driving home to your kid that you don't trust them, ever, or for any reason. Discount for the moment the fact that this sort of technology is also intended to keep tabs on where every human is all the time, do you really trust your kid so little to do the right thing that you need a technological solution to a complete non-problem? Why the fuck even give them a car if you can't bring yourself to trust that they'll do the right thing?

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    27. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust but verify

    28. Re:Yeah because you know... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      A late 2000s base model suburu impreza is the perfect new driver car. 2.0l 4wd, non turbo, fast enough to do the speed limit but slow enough to not get yourself in trouble. And they are bullet proof. And for the vanity concious teenage they look pretty decent.

      Given it will be 12 years before my eldest is on the road though my impreza will probably be long gone by then

    29. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? They are trying to sell new cars, a retrofit kit does nothing to sell new cars. It isn't like parents wouldn't consider buying a new family type car like a Malibu now for carrying the kids currently aged around 6-10 now and let them drive the car in 6+ years or so when they are old enough.

      If they can convince a parent to buy a car now because they will be able to pass it to their kid to drive 'safely' in several years more power to them.

      Besides I do know of several people who were either given a brand new car at 16 or allowed to drive the new car.

    30. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents trusted me and I did stuff like drive full throttle in my (purchased by me) 400 cubic inch muscle car loaded with other kids down dark, narrow country roads (didn't everyone?). I wasn't drunk while I did it but lots of my friends were. And we were the "good kids". If we had parental monitors on our driving we wouldn't have done it and still had plenty of freedom to be kids. The problem is you can't trust teenagers but you can't shackle them either. A bit of techno-oversight sounds fine to me.

    31. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You knew a bunch of shitheads with stupid parents. The truth is that those fuckwits are the exception, not the rule.

    32. Re:Yeah because you know... by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Any 10 year old economy commuter car has basically reached shitbox status. It still doesn't mean they're unsafe.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    33. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get that you're a moron, but must you showcase it?

    34. Re:Yeah because you know... by taustin · · Score: 1

      Maybe in addition, but around here, boob jobs are ubiquitous, always have been, always will be. This is the land where natural blondes dye their eyebrows brunette to look like bleached blonde bimbos.

    35. Re:Yeah because you know... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I suspect he might have been exaggerating for comic effect. s/POS junker/grannymobile/ if it makes you feel better.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    36. Re:Yeah because you know... by mrbester · · Score: 1

      My 11 year old shitbox was a shitbox when it rolled off the assembly line. Now it's not as shiny, but it can still do over a ton without red lining or otherwise exploding.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    37. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 This is the crux

    38. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a Chevy. It's already a shitbox.

      Funny? This shit is Insightful.

    39. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had an early-70s-ish buick hardtop that had a buzzer when you exceeded the speed it was set to trigger at... so I guess they've been working on this for a few decades.

    40. Re:Yeah because you know... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I kind of agree with you. There is the thought though that at least this way you can allow a kid you don't really trust to drive. If you know he's the kind that the minute he's (or she's) out of your sight they do as they please but you need for them to have access to a car then this might be an option.

    41. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friend of mine's father had a 1964 Starfire convertible. It had a dispenser (printer?) for service reminders. One night we raced a dude in an Impala convertible. After a few minutes, the thing spat out "Excessive abuse".

    42. Re:Yeah because you know... by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      Old doesn't necessarily mean unsafe or unreliable. Plenty of people drive 10 year old cars that are not putting them in danger.

      The average care on the road is *more* than ten years old. A lot of old cars still work perfectly well.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ji...

    43. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Conservative, I too endorse the utilization of slave labor to build our cars. As long as my stock values go higher, I really don't care about anyone or anything else.

    44. Re:Yeah because you know... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I too endorse the utilization of slave labor to build our cars

      Well at least be serious. You endorse the utilization of slave employers.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    45. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF you have teenage children, you know they don't think properly *all the time*. Trust is a spectrum, not a 1-bit binary.

      Allowing my daughter to drive the car is an act of near-absolute trust in the first place. That doesn't mean she will *always* do *everything* I asked her. Don't drive out of state [risk is too high | insurance won't cover it | whatever reason since I'm the parent].
      Check the logs, find out car was in Manhattan. Take keys. I don't see the problem.

      -Alien among you (who never realized how much I depend on kwallet)

    46. Re:Yeah because you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is nothing to do with California and everything to do with rich and shallow. I assure you such people exist everywhere. California just has a lot of people.

  3. I'm fine with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you really should not let your moronic teen drive in the first place if you truly believe you need this in the first place.

    Putting a built-in speed limit to cars might be a better idea. There's no reason to go above a certain speed in the city and unless you take a highway, no reason to go above a certain speed either...
    Self driving cars cannot come soon enough.

  4. Whew! by fatblunt · · Score: 2

    Glad this wasn't around when I was 18. Of course then my insurance was more than the car payment.

    1. Re:Whew! by infolation · · Score: 1

      It's only important that the younger "voters of the future" generation are softened up to some global panopticism. Surveillance wonks don't care about the old people now.

    2. Re: Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. The way we treat our children like inmates at school will come back with a vengeance in the voting booth and the result will sting.

  5. Bicycles don't tell on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bicycles don't have number plates. Bicycles make you fitter. Good luck getting laid though.

    1. Re:Bicycles don't tell on you by omfgnosis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Far as I can tell, everyone who bikes in Seattle is constantly having sex. Even while cycling.

  6. A cheaper solution by Thraxy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you don't trust your kids, don't lend them your car.

    1. Re:A cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you don't trust your kids, don't lend them your car.

      Trust, but verify. :-)

    2. Re:A cheaper solution by sexconker · · Score: 1

      If you don't trust your kids, don't lend them your car.

      Trust, but verify. :-)

      "Trust but verify" is a joke. If you feel the need to verify, then you don't trust.

    3. Re:A cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't trust your kids, don't lend them your car.

      Trust, but verify. :-)

      "Trust but verify" is a joke. If you feel the need to verify, then you don't trust.

      No, its an old and wise Russian proverb. Its also an important part of the scientific method.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

    4. Re:A cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Trust but verify" is a joke. If you feel the need to verify, then you don't trust.

      Trust is a multidimensional continuum. You might trust your mechanic enough to let him fix your car but not enough to spend a night naked in bed with your teenage daughter.

      And there are all kinds of reasons that you might feel trusting towards someone. Maybe someone is very attractive and has very sincere facial expressions. Maybe someone else has a long history of doing nice things for you even when they could have benefited from doing mean things to you. Maybe some else has promised to do something nice for you and the expectation is that they will provide evidence of this (verification) at some time in the future.

      In a relationship with high levels of trust, detailed verification would be cumbersome - and in extreme cases insisting on such verification can destroy relation ships. But some degree of verification should be expected. For example, the other day my wife was talking about how her sister's husband, who has a history of cheating, would fly into a rage if his wife came anywhere near his mobile phone. And I told my wife that if she wanted to she would be welcome to look through the messages on my mobile phone - that the only naughty messages were from her. She didn't bother to look at my messages but she also seemed very relieved that I was willing to allow verification.

      Bottom line, feelings of trust should be based on something real. And concrete action, including the option to verify, is a lot more real that attractiveness or sincere facial expressions.

    5. Re:A cheaper solution by westlake · · Score: 1

      If you don't trust your kids, don't lend them your car.

      It isn't about trusting your kid, it is about learning the hard way how your kid's behavior can change in the company of others his own age.

      Especially when alcohol is involved.

    6. Re:A cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genius! Let them be unable to drive (and therefore unemployable) until they've earned enough to buy their own! Yeah!

    7. Re:A cheaper solution by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      If you trust teenage kids then you are stupid.

  7. Doesn't matter by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Not letting them on the road seems a little extreme but do they have to have a brand new car? What happened to having a beater to putt around in for the first few years?

    What does it matter to you? Sure I drove a beater like most of us but if a parent puts their kid in a new(er) car, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that unless the kid develops an entitlement complex from it. If the money isn't an issue to them it really shouldn't matter to us either.

    1. Re:Doesn't matter by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not letting them on the road seems a little extreme but do they have to have a brand new car? What happened to having a beater to putt around in for the first few years?

      What does it matter to you? Sure I drove a beater like most of us but if a parent puts their kid in a new(er) car, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that unless the kid develops an entitlement complex from it. If the money isn't an issue to them it really shouldn't matter to us either.

      Getting a shiny new car for your first car is typically a symptom of being a spoiled brat.
      (And yes, if the parents can afford a shiny new car to give their kid as their first car, they're likely very well off and thus the kid is likely a spoiled brat.)
      Spoiled brats don't have to deal with consequences. Spoiled brats will drive like assholes. A shiny new car enforces this mentality, and it encourages driving with friends and doing stupid shit.

      Have you ever even met a teenager?

    2. Re:Doesn't matter by Meshach · · Score: 1

      What does it matter to you?

      Nothing until they are out for a joyride in their brand new sports car and they loose control due to carelessness and wreck my car / destroy my property / hit me while I am walking down the road.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    3. Re:Doesn't matter by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Spoiled brats don't have to deal with consequences. Spoiled brats will drive like assholes.

      My first car was a piece of shit and I still drove it like I stole it. And if my parents had a technology like this one, I'd have had to explain to them how to set it up.

    4. Re:Doesn't matter by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      and that changes by driving a new car vs an old one... how exactly??

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always about you, isn't it?

    6. Re:Doesn't matter by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      and that changes by driving a new car vs an old one... how exactly??

      The new car has ABS, anti-skid technology, lane control, auto-braking collision detection, airbags, auto-tensioning seat belts, and a dash cam. So it is less likely to be in an accident, and less likely to cause an injury if it is.

    7. Re:Doesn't matter by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Getting a shiny new car for your first car is typically a symptom of being a spoiled brat.

      No it doesn't. I know that the first years of driving are the ones you are most at risk. Having come very close to being a blood splat more than a few times I will be aiming to buy my kids as close to a new car as possible because the safety is higher and the service history is more known. A new car doesn't equal a fast car. I would rather that my daughters are driving a new sedan like a Camry than a 15 year old version of the same car.

    8. Re:Doesn't matter by adolf · · Score: 1

      This isn't about your parents. This is about you, and me, and that other guy over there.

      (Yep. Old happens. Get over it.)

    9. Re:Doesn't matter by russotto · · Score: 1

      What makes you think anything has changed? Teenagers are still going to drive like teenagers (sure, the spoiled brats will be worse, but not the only problems) and they still have more time and motivation to figure out things like this than their parents, even if their parents are tech-savvy.

    10. Re:Doesn't matter by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Spoiled brats don't have to deal with consequences. Spoiled brats will drive like assholes. A shiny new car enforces this mentality, and it encourages driving with friends and doing stupid shit.

      Have you ever even met a teenager?

      Funnily enough I met a road raging one the other day. Total entitlement type. he stuck his face three inches from mine and threatened me. I am still waiting for the cops to come around as I headbutted him and left.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  8. Perfect opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me to project my personal experiences growing up, opinion of class dynamics, thoughts about other people who are not like me, and biases about the Right Way To Live on to only tangentially related news stories!

  9. Sounds Fine To Me by Toad-san · · Score: 0

    Kid doesn't like it: let him buy his own damned car, _and_ his insurance, _and_ his maintenance.

    As an Army brat in Germany, I couldn't afford a car, but motorcycles were really cheap so that's what I had. Then into the Army and definitely no money, so I was 20 before I finally owned my own (a really worn-out TR-2 I bought from my First Sergeant). I never have owned a new car; guess I just got in the habit of buying used ones. Never had any children of my own, so I haven't gone through that "Beautiful People" issue. But there again it's the question of who's running the household. If you've turned it over to the kids, you _deserve_ to be murdered in your sleep.

    1. Re:Sounds Fine To Me by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Amen! I had to build or buy my first car. Actually built. I bought a VW bus without an engine, then found an engine.

      Rode motorcycle from age 8 so I did the motorcycle thing from 16 to 18 then wanted to build a franken bus.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  10. And a discount from the insurance company ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Glad this wasn't around when I was 18. Of course then my insurance was more than the car payment.

    Aren't insurance companies offering discounts for installing such devices reporting to them? If not, perhaps soon?

  11. Money money money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh good!

    So now your car companies cloud service gets to have a copy of not just your teens driving habbits but yours too that they can sell to any insurance companies willing to pay the premium. That and your children will get to be fucked on their premiums in the future when insurance companies can use data on their teen driving habits to justify shitty premiums.

    But this great teen feature is only for your convenience. Right. Yeah.

  12. Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Teenage drivers with fresh licenses should be driving older cheaper-to-buy cars.

    Unless a teenager (or their parents) are rich, they should be buying an older cheaper car that doesn't require taking out a massive auto loan. In Australia the usual recommendation/good option is something small and Japanese like a Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Suzuki Swift, Mitsubishi Lancer, Nissan Pulsar, Mazda 323, Honda Jazz or something like that but in the US the best option may be different.

    1. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Due to safety concerns, there a good case to be made to be putting your teen in the biggest newest vehicle (SUV or truck ideally) as possible. The last thing you want is for them to get hit or hit someone while driving a crappy Civic because odds are good the other person involved was in an SUV or truck. Civic vs Generic SUV will be a one-sided fight no matter what happens.

    2. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by jonwil · · Score: 3, Informative

      The roads in Australia are filled with SUVs just as much as they are in the US (and that number seems to be growing all the time based on my observations) and yet people who know what they are talking about (including a family member who has been working in dealerships and selling both new and used cars for decades and now works in management at a dealer) still recommend small fuel efficient Japanese cars as good first cars for young drivers (despite the "increased risk" if they get into an accident with an SUV)

    3. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree with that. I've helped my father around the car since being a child - carburetors, spark plug changes, break pad changes, break line air removal, some other stuff.
      I got my license (driver's training included a few different manual shift diesel cars - 12 hours on a driving range, 6 hours on highway, 6 hours in city, and 4 hours of theory including first aid and CPR) at 17, and then since I couldn't afford a car (any car) I just put it on the shelve. I've driven occasionally less than 300km in total, primarily helping friends who were too drunk to drive until I was 27. When I was 27 (in 2010) I moved to Arizona and got a new VW Golf with an automatic transmission. Car is still in perfect shape, no dings, no scraped paint, and I enjoy driving it every now and then on unpaved roads here in Arizona, speeding above the limit miles from any other living body (hence posting as anonymous).

      It's up to the behind-the-wheel-device (is there a word like PEBSAW?) sense of responsibility and primarily understanding of physics driving a ton and a half of metal on 4 post card sized contact patches to the ground below. It is irresponsible to allow anyone to drive before they understand force vectors, centrifugal force, centripetal force, negative acceleration, gravity, and gear ratios.

    4. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then wait five years and these new cars will be old cars and by your rules teen-agers will be allowed to drive them.

      In the meantime families with the means will have an option that might be good for them.

      As long as the ignition doesn't switch when bumped or something silly like that.

    5. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point being, you don't let somebody practice driving, you teach them to understand driving. Without understanding they will be doing the same stupid thing over and over again.

    6. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Civic vs Generic SUV will be a one-sided fight no matter what happens.

      A while back I had a look at the actual data. At the time, there was some sort of Mercedes station wagon that had the lowest number of fatalities. My take away was that if you can afford a relatively new car with modern safety features (e.g. for the family but to share with the teen) then the smaller cars are plenty safe.

      I did have some neighbors who had a daughter who wasn't very "focused" as a teenager ("airhead" was the terminology we used back in the day). Well, long story short they did the selfish thing and put her in the biggest SUV they could get their hands on. Everything was fine until she got a bit distracted and rear-ended a smaller car at a stop light. She wasn't hurt herself but the baby in the smaller car wasn't so lucky. Thing is, she almost certainly would have been fine herself in a smaller car - but in a smaller car she wouldn't have had to live out the rest of her life with the guilt of what she did to that baby.

    7. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you want to let your kid drive, but without buying him a new car (or without him buying a new car).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      The odds are very good that your teenager will crash their first car. There are a variety of factors that go into this, but the number one is probably inexperience. When they crash, you want them in something with the most modern safety standards. As my father used to say, machines can always be replaced, people can't. I would hate to be in a situation where my thrift ended up killing my kid.

    9. Re: Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      So instead of being hit by a teen too busy texting in a Civic I'll be hit by a teen texting in a Suburban.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    10. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, I totally think kids should be in new cars...

      New cars tend to have the best safety equipment, or at least better than what was standard 5-10 years ago.

      I'll bring up my point right here:

      https://youtu.be/TKL_cn8vhjo

    11. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the dumbest fucking reasoning I've ever heard. Know what? We should get kids to just drive 3 ton dump trucks. Because a 3 ton dump truck vs a generic SUV is going to be a one-sided fight no matter what happens.

      Moron.

    12. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, I totally think kids should be in new cars...

      New cars tend to have the best safety equipment, or at least better than what was standard 5-10 years ago.

      I think so too. However, I think the parents should pick the car - pick a boring car that's known for extreme reliability, and low cost.

      Something like the utterly dull Toyota Corolla - just a boring vehicle but with good reliability.

      A new car gives them the newest safety equipment, but also is generally more reliable. Last thing a parent wants is to worry about their kid stuck in a broken down vehicle. Just something that will reliably get them from point A to point B for a few years then they can upgrade to another car.

    13. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why? People should be free to drive whatever they want and can afford. In many cases new cars have far better safety features than older shitboxes. I learnt to drive on a shitbox and owned a shitbox, but the one time I nearly had an accident I was driving my parent's convertible and lives were potentially saved by ABS, a feature which my car didn't have.

      What people should NOT drive is a car beyond their means. I like the direction some states headded with the introduction of a 130kW/t power-to-weight restriction for provisional driver holders. Watching idiot teenagers behind the wheel of muscle cars, or hotted up cars without any increase in safety features (i.e. boosting the power output without boosting the suspension, breaks, or wheel size) just boggles the mind.

    14. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The roads in Australia are filled with SUVs just as much as they are in the US (and that number seems to be growing all the time based on my observations) and yet people who know what they are talking about (including a family member who has been working in dealerships and selling both new and used cars for decades and now works in management at a dealer) still recommend small fuel efficient Japanese cars as good first cars for young drivers (despite the "increased risk" if they get into an accident with an SUV)

      Its a myth that SUV's are safer. Even though larger cars are marginally safer than smaller cars (and this is marginally), they're talking about large sedans like a Toyota Camry vs a small car like a Toyota Yaris (or things like the Aygo we dont get in Oz). SUV's have additional risk in the fact that they're so top heavy they're more likely to roll in an accident which increases the risk of head and neck injuries which are the real killer in car crashes.

      A lot of Australian states have been stupidly banning novice drivers from high powered cars but research from Curtain University in Western Australia has demonstrated that high powered cars (cars in excess of 125KW per ton) not highly represented in fatal crashes, in fact the vehicle type most represented in young driver fatalities were 4x4's.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Might be worth clarifying, an SUV in Australia is a Toyota RAV4, Nissan XTrail etc. In the US it's a truck.

    16. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Yeah there is a big difference between someone driving, say, a Mitsubishi ASX (basically a lancer on stilts) and someone driving, say, a Holden Colorado 7 (an SUV version of the Australian-market Holden Colorado truck)

    17. Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Teenage drivers with fresh licenses should be driving older cheaper-to-buy cars.

      Unless a teenager (or their parents) are rich, they should be buying an older cheaper car that doesn't require taking out a massive auto loan. In Australia the usual recommendation/good option is something small and Japanese like a Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Suzuki Swift, Mitsubishi Lancer, Nissan Pulsar, Mazda 323, Honda Jazz or something like that but in the US the best option may be different.

      Yes but in 5-10 years this car will be older and cheaper to buy

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  13. Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's how skynet begins.. by giving up our control to computers.

  14. The Password by warewolfsmith · · Score: 1, Funny

    The password to disable teen driver mode is: CHEVY all uppercase, and the disable code is 12345 :-)

  15. Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was a teenager learning to drive, I would have absolutely hated this. It would have completely ruined the feeling of freedom that driving unsupervised provides, and would have made me rant and rail against the injustice of it all.

    Now that I am a grown-up, when my kids become teenagers, you bet your bottom dollar they are going to have to put up with this. Yes, they will hate it, and they will hate me for it. And they will live to do the same to their kids.

    1. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And that, ladies & gents, is why serial sociopathy runs in families.

    2. Re:Yeah. by epyT-R · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's people like you who create the oppressive dystopia the future generation will have to clean up after.

    3. Re:Yeah. by l810c · · Score: 2, Informative

      Same feelings here.

      I would have hated it, but in 5 years my oldest is getting something like this.

      I went ape shit when I got my first car, quite literally trying to emulate Dukes of Hazard(Filmed in my hometown BTW). Most all of us have some regret on their youth, but I am very lucky to be alive.

    4. Re: Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I feel sorry for parents with kids about to drive. I'm genuinely excited my toddler may never need to learn - should be plenty of app-hailable self driving cars by then.

    5. Re:Yeah. by l810c · · Score: 1

      Thought about it a little bit more and decided to dig up a clip, I was in the Hazzard County Square on Tuesday.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    6. Re:Yeah. by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Well consider yourself lucky to be among one of the last generations who got to experience even a slight amount of freedom from parental, and State supervision. This technology has less to do with easing parents minds, than providing the security services a convenient "in" for the complete surveillance of everyone's movement. Do you really think the tracking turns "off" when you're driving?

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    7. Re:Yeah. by taustin · · Score: 2

      As opposed to serial psychopathy, where parents believe their children should never have adult supervision of any kind, and are just turned loose on society as wild animals to be put down when they get caught?

    8. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you mean. They weren't wearing their seat belts!

  16. Get off my lawn by tool462 · · Score: 2

    Why can't they have what I had?
    A POS car that could only go 75 if you turned off the AC.
    The radio would cut out when you turned left, and if you tried to turn the volume up, you'd just blow a fuse anyway.
    The backseat was so small you weren't getting up to anything even if you could convince a girl to look past the rust and bubbling clear-coat.

    All this for less than $1k, and it gets 40mpg due to the three horsepower engine (one for each working cylinder)! Put the money you save into their college fund since they now have a chance of getting out of high school alive and childless.

    Now excuse me as a I return to my Fortress of Solitude...

    1. Re:Get off my lawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of lawns, I've seen a few kids go "yard riding" where they drive onto someones nice lawn, and proceed to floor it, sometimes doing donuts. I saw one guy get his mazda stuck, he dug in too deep. It was funny as hell watching him try and push his mazdaradi out of the pit he dug himself into just as the homeowner came out. I've never partaken in such behavior myself.

    2. Re:Get off my lawn by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      A POS car that could only go 75 if you turned off the AC.

      Your first car had an A/C? Wow....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Get off my lawn by burtosis · · Score: 1

      My first car had A/C that probably stopped working 5 years before I got it. I got a junker for 500 bucks and fixed it up (well it ran without breaking down anyways). Fixing cars is still pretty easy for most repairs and motivating teens to learn to fix the easy stuff is a good life lesson. I didn't actually buy a vehicle worth over 2k usd till I was done with my undergrad.

  17. reduced the speed huh by Revek · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those poor kids might have escaped the tornado if their car hadn't been limited to 45 miles per hour.

    1. Re:reduced the speed huh by Eristone · · Score: 1

      Not like there has been much to run from the last few years.

    2. Re:reduced the speed huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more likely, they'll find themselves doing 49.5 mph Max, bang in the middle of overtaking an 18-wheeler doing 47 mph, as the 18-wheeler coming the opposite direction suddenly appears on the horizon. Speed limiters can also be inherently dangerous.

      even more likely though, kids will quickly figure out how to remote cripple the Chevy to 15 mph, till pissed-off Pop trying to get home from a business trip promises to buy them a Mustang, if only they'll stop fucking about with the controls.

  18. The thing I find most sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing I find most sad about this is not that teens might be shocked by an invasion of what used to be their privacy, or that average people might fear the government would use it to track them (they don't need new ways of doing THAT anywhere you can reasonably drive a car). It's that this technology could be used to MARKEDLY improve peoples' fuel efficiency and overall driving skill levels, but it's not being marketed that way because people would likely never care to use it that way.

  19. A reflection of US society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what kind of society is America building ?, you are freaking obsessed with spying, monitoring, tracking, identifying, is that the best you can do with trillions of dollars of tech ?
      i dont know what you are teaching kids and the next generation in schools but it doesnt seem very beneficial for a healthy society, millions of people dedicated to watching what others are doing with their lives.

  20. Wont somebody think of the childrens?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what about all the subwoofers and the burnouts?

    Wont somebody think of the children?!?!?

  21. How did we ever survive? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Teens learning to drive in anything but the last decade, without these parental smart phone apps. We should all have died an instant fiery death.

    just one more step into the 24/7 surveillance life. Get them used to it early, then they won't think it abnormal it later.

    1. Re:How did we ever survive? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Many did. My graduating class in the last two years we had 40 kids out of a graduating class of 300 die in car accidents.

      One of them at the rear of a semi truck in a corvette at well over 100 mph. 16 to 18 year olds are absolutely not mature enough to drive safely on their own. There are exceptions, like kids that started driving at 12 on the farm, or kids that started riding dirt bikes at age 8.. They all made very safe drivers because they had the years of experience that the car is not a big toy and crashes hurt like hell.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:How did we ever survive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck? My highschool class in the 1990s had two kids die: one suicide and one freak diving accident on holiday with his family. I think a set of kids about 8 years ahead of us died in a single car that smashed into the back of a semi truck, and it remained lore that we all heard about.

    3. Re:How did we ever survive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many did. My graduating class in the last two years we had 40 kids out of a graduating class of 300 die in car accidents.

      I'd say [citation needed], but frankly given how over the top this claim is I think I'll go with "bullshit" instead.

    4. Re:How did we ever survive? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it might have been due to them running an illegal street racing racket.

      the number is otherwise impossible, even in thailand.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:How did we ever survive? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Driving at 12 on the farm, how about 7? 1958 John Deere 520 with a hand clutch. My first car was a 56 Ford then a one year old 68 Impala when I was 16. One little bumper bender with it and no speeding tickets.

    6. Re:How did we ever survive? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Many did. My graduating class in the last two years we had 40 kids out of a graduating class of 300 die in car accidents.

      I recently went to my 40th year HS reunion. 1974.
      Grad class of 200 or so. Out of the 20 or so who have passed away over the years, 4 were from car accidents.

      Your numbers are waaaay outside the curve. Or just BS.

  22. the problem is not speed by kenshin33 · · Score: 0

    how about educating them about speed ??? FFS, since when abstinence did work???

    1. Re:the problem is not speed by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I agree on this. set up a simulated cockpit and fire an airbag in their face. The little shits need to know that car accidents hurt.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  23. OMG so HIGH TECH! by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    we had this for over a decade. ODB-II dongle that is easy to install that records all that. Hell you could buy a version that had a gps that logged location.

    Glad to see GM is finally catching up to 2005!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  24. Pure marketing, no payoff as usual by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Kids learn from their mistakes. I learned from mine as much as my parents tried to protect me, mine learned from theirs. I made some real doozies but miraculously survived, by all indications mine weren't as reckless. Not positive it was because I was far less restrictive but it seems plausible.

    1. Re:Pure marketing, no payoff as usual by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Kids learn from their mistakes.

      Yup, except for the dead ones. Also hard for the other people they kill to learn to avoid being around teenage drivers.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  25. Liability? by afidel · · Score: 2

    I wonder how much this opens the owner up to additional liability when there's an accident and the opposing council subpenas the records of the vehicle and shows a pattern of reckless driving?

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Liability? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Most modern vehicles already do have these records and they can be subpoena.

  26. Dolls and recreation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chevy Malibu Barbie, the doll that tells your parents what you have been talking behind their backs and instantly converts any six-year-old to a loyal Chevy customer.

  27. Pilot program for Insurance industry by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

    Title says it all. This is a pilot program for the automotive insurance industry to offer "reduced rates". Eventually, it becomes mandatory on new cars based on some government regulated standards.

    Yeah well, they can suck my cock and like it!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Pilot program for Insurance industry by Spamalope · · Score: 2

      And auto makers to selling data about my frequent speeding to improve $afety via highway patrol.

      The Mark II version will simply report on you and you'll get your ticket in the mail, bypassing the insurance company. (well, they'll raise your rates and get a cut too) I can't wait for the redlight camera scam version of that where they 'misprogram' a road at 15mph below the posted speed and ticket everyone.

    2. Re:Pilot program for Insurance industry by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the civilized Europeans will just link the electronic throttle body to GPS. Doesn't matter what speed zone you're in, mashing on the throttle will not let you go past it.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Pilot program for Insurance industry by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Title says it all. This is a pilot program for the automotive insurance industry to offer "reduced rates".

      And what's wrong with that? You are free to not use, they are free to ask for more money because of it. That is how a free market should work

      Eventually, it becomes mandatory on new cars based on some government regulated standards.

      They don't need to because the work is already done. When implemented properly you do not need regulations, because the general population are persuaded into better behaviour by the idea of saving money.

    4. Re:Pilot program for Insurance industry by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Well well well, look what just made the news. It was predictable.

      http://www.engadget.com/2015/0...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  28. Hey GM... by pinzvidz · · Score: 1

    ... no teen wants to be seen driving your POS Malibus.

  29. self-driving cars at least 5 years away and then by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    self-driving cars at least 5 years away and then it will likely be only on some roads / self drive only roads. Self-driving cars will be leased, as long as the leasening co is willing to take the risks.

    Also we need more public transportation.

  30. we also need real speed limits on highways by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    we also need real speed limits on highways no more on of this 45-55 shit on 3-4+ lane ones much less major toll roads.

  31. key of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are these the same engineers that designed the ignition switch?

  32. Zero debt by tepples · · Score: 1

    Visualize Billy's, Tammy's and Chris's future debt

    I can visualize a big fat goose egg. So can anyone else familiar with Dave Ramsey's techniques.

  33. Good for some... by swooshxx · · Score: 1

    You have a bullied nerd for a child if they choose being spoiled + monitored over riding in a friend's car. I'd be more concerned about them if they accepted this scenario openly than I would be if they sped occasionally.

  34. Perhaps teenagers shouldn't drive at all by pereric · · Score: 1

    Perhaps teenagers shouldn't drive at all? At least, we have had serious proposals from researchers in several EU countries that rising the legal driving age from 18 to 20 years or above would be a pretty sensible thing, and save quite a few lives. Seems like the younger drivers are over-involved in accidents not just because of a short driving experience, but also lack of general perception and judgment skills. (30-45 km/h mopeds would still be allowed from 15-16 years old)

    Of course, this would be a (independent) mobility impairment in a car-centric society, with extensive suburbia, without adequate public transportation and cycling facilities. In a car-centric society it would of course also raise a big cry deny access to the instrument of "freedom and unhindered movement" (don't mention congestion ...)

    However, at least over here, thar car is (slowly) losing status, at least in urban areas. In many European cities, the response would probably be "meh" - or "good damn time". In many cities most 20-year olds don't have a driving license already, and driver license rates are pretty steadily declining.

  35. Some rental car companies do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I rented a car once that sounded an alarm when I went over 65 mph. The alarm stopped when I went back under 65mph.

  36. South Dakota by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    Legal age for an unrestricted drivers license in South Dakota is 14.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  37. front passenger detection by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    One of the most annoying safety features to have come out in quite a while.

    I've lost track of the number of times I'd had to buckle my -backback- in because my car thought there was a person sitting there :/

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:front passenger detection by mjwx · · Score: 1

      One of the most annoying safety features to have come out in quite a while.

      I've lost track of the number of times I'd had to buckle my -backback- in because my car thought there was a person sitting there :/

      You can blame the *NCAP programs for this. The difference between an ENCAP 4 star rating and a 5 star rating are a number of warning buzzers. The Honda Accord got knocked down to 4 stars solely because it didn't have a rear seatbelt warning chime. Crash tests demonstrated that it was as safe to pedestrians and occupants as other 5 star cars.

      Automatic Emergency Braking is going to become your new favourite annoying safety features in a few years as the woman who rear ended you keeps crying that the car was meant to brake for her.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  38. It's how involved the parents are - not the car by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Getting a shiny new car for your first car is typically a symptom of being a spoiled brat.

    You apparently don't know many children of wealthy parents. I do. My parents aren't well off but they put me through a private school (with financial assistance) where many of my classmates came from monied families. You know what? Virtually all of them were nice, well adjusted and not at all spoiled. Quite a few got to drive nice new cars while still in high school. And when they did act spoiled their parents usually came down on them like a ton of bricks.

    The car is meaningless. It's how much the parents are involved and give a shit about their child's behavior that matters. Sure there are some parents who get it wrong but you're painting with an awfully broad brush there and the actual facts don't support your thesis. It's been my experience (first hand) that on average kids with well off parents tend to be MORE involved in their child's life (car or not) and the statistics on this tend to on average back me up.

  39. Thanks sexconker... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    * :)

    (Dave420's a serious moron that's been harassing me for MONTHS now dozens of times I have bookmarked, probably many more via unjustifiable downmods of my posts etc, & no joke on that - it was time for some "payback" is all, & what you did was better than anything else I did by far!)

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm also NOT the only one that feels that way from THIS WEEK ALONE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... that I quoted (I wonder how littered with like opinions there are through his entire post history, you know?)... apk

  40. Been there, done that by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2

    In the noughties my employers set out to develop similar technology. We had GPS-based units that would record where a vehicle was and could be programmed to tell on you if you drove too fast, stopped for too long, went to somewhere you weren't supposed to go, and so on. They communicated over a 2 way paging network.

    The technology worked. I did the mobile device programming and put together a test unit that used differential GPS. Instead of telling you which street you were on, it could tell you which lane you were in. :-) The marketing, on the other hand, didn't work. :-(

    ...laura

  41. Adults Also by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    A smart insurance company would insist on data gathering devices in all of their insured cars. Do you really want to insure a person who frequently fails to use a seat belt? Or should you insure a person who frequently violates speed limits or runs red lights? I had a driver's license at the age of 14 and had no problems at all. As a young person I had zero tickets and zero accidents. At 16 I was a Western Union motorcycle messenger working 40 hours a week in all weather and under frequently very dangerous conditions. And I still had no problems other than a chronic lack of sleep from working full time while going to school and having some academic recognition. Underneath the driving issues rests the simple fact that we have segments of society that are worse then useless. Many of the teens these days will simply end up in drug rehabs, jails, prisons and mental wards, or welfare receivers. The question is what can we do to turn defective youth into something resembling productive citizens. It seems as though once a teen starts to go sour it is usually a one way street.

    1. Re:Adults Also by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of what you say, but there are cases like myself, also been driving since 14, and was also a motorcycle courier, but with a history of speeding tickets as long as your arm. In 30 years of driving/riding I've never had an at fault accident. I don't speed to be cool or show off, I just have a natural tendency to operate machines faster than others, hence drive a bit quicker than most. Some people talk faster than others, some walk faster than others, when will we be mature enough to accept that some people can operate machinery faster than others without being persecuted as child murderers?

  42. Speeding? Nice boogieman. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speeding and drunk drivers have been a boogie man for a long time.
    Inattentive drivers are where the crashes are. No politician will make laws that target the majority though so "OMG drunk speeders are going to eat your baby!" make a villain. Of course most of us know this already.
    Will this tell you how much time your kid spent on their cell phone while driving?

    Speed contributes to damage when a crash happens, it doesn't commonly cause them.

    Now with teens they are not used to driving the car so there may be a little bit of worry. At least their reflexes and senses are faster and sharper than ours, when they use them.

  43. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. Parents need this kind of app. ANYTHING to help parents manage these wild heathens they claim to be rearing up.

    Teens have absolutely no claim o privacy as long as their parents are paying the bills, particularly those teens who have proven by their actions the cannot be trusted.

  44. For whom the bell tolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before your car auto reports you to the police for violating regulations?