Slashdot Log In
Ford To Introduce Restrictive Car Keys For Parents
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:21 PM
from the no-you-cannot-borrow-my-keys dept.
from the no-you-cannot-borrow-my-keys dept.
thesandbender writes "Ford is set to release a management system that will restrict certain aspects of a car's performance based on which key is in the ignition. The speed is limited to 80, you can't turn off traction control, and you can't turn the stereo up to eleven. It's targeted at parents of teenagers and seems like a generally good idea, especially if you get a break on your insurance." The keys will be introduced with the 2010 Focus coupe and will quickly spread to Ford's entire lineup.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Performance? In a Ford? (Score:5, Funny)
Do Fords even go up to 80?
Re:Performance? In a Ford? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm betting the stock stereo on any ford doesn't go up to a (Spinal Tap style) 11 either.
Parent
Re:Performance? In a Ford? (Score:5, Funny)
Stock 2008 Ford Fusion Lease with the 6 cylinder engine hits 120 Mph easily, and does 20 to 80 onto the freeway fast enough to give you a bit of G force feeling. My wife thinks she's freaking Mario Andretti in it. On the bad side, MS Sync blows, can't understand voice commands, even with the latest patch. My wife calls her the Sync Bitch and wants her dead daily.
Jonah HEX
Parent
should have had this when i was a kid (Score:5, Funny)
Just as effective... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is 80 even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is 80 even legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes - West Texas, along portions of Interstates 10 [wikipedia.org] and 20 [wikipedia.org]. Check the I-10 wikipedia page for a picture of the sign...
Parent
GM already did that (Score:5, Funny)
GM already did that in a car where cutting back the car's performance makes a difference - a
"valet" key limited the 1990-1995 ZR-1 Corvette to 225bhp or so, by shutting off the secondary intake runners and secondary fuel injectors.
Who's going to notice the difference in a Ford Focus? Limited power or not, 0 to 60 still takes about eight weeks. Traction control? Can a Focus actually break traction on dry ground?
Alternatively.. (Score:5, Funny)
Alternatively parents could try having a mature and trusting relationship with their teenage children...
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're trying to accelerate from 70 to 90 mph to avoid an accident I'd be willing to bet that you would have been much better off just hitting the brakes anyway. If they were talking about restricting acceleration, you might have a point. As it is, I don't see having a limited top speed causing any accidents.
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on the direction. It could well be accelerating at 9.8m/s^2. But if that's the case, you're screwed anyways.
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't like that one? There are plenty of cars that have top end limiters, I believe there one of the old Chevys cut out at 115 or so. How many people do you think have been complaining about that one?
I rarely drive the speed limit in anything but rush hour traffic, but the idea that not being able to go faster than 80 is endangering anybodies life, or especially more people than it's protecting is complete bullshit. It's right up there with people who don't wear seatbelts because they know a guy who knows a guy who was killed by one, you can come up with any harebrained scenario to justify it (I've already seen "racing off a collapsing bridge") but you're just grasping at straws.
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me reiterate the GP's point:
And now we've seen "racing 80+ on gravel tracks normally reserved for Finnish rally drivers to save a kid from concussion to the head, caused by wild mÃÃse"
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently, a Cheetah.
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, you should be leaving enough space in front of you to brake safely, and if that space becomes compromised you should rebuild that space quickly. There is no excuse for going into the back of someone, it means that you wasn't driving safely, and insurance claims agree on this 99% of the time.
Thirdly, top speed is not the same as acceleration. Acceleration can be handy to get out of a tight situation like pulling out of a junction or onto a roundabout, but going more than 80 mph is not a tight situation.
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously.
I was rear-ended at a fairly high-speed (I was sitting at a stop light) a few years ago in a Volvo, by a Saturn.
The Saturn was a mess (and literally *bounced* off of the Volvo). My car needed a new bumper and a bit of paint*.
There's something to be said for putting teenagers in slow, heavy cars. The Volvo wasn't particularly *slow* or underpowered, though it also certainly wasn't the sort of car that one "joyrides" in.
The first car I drove was a Minivan. It served very well to teach me the, uh, limitations of certain vehicles. Having a good sense of when to be conservative (and also when it's OK to be somewhat less so) was one of the more important driving skills I picked up. It also seated 7, which was great as a teenager, despite the extremely "uncool" stigma associated with driving a van.
Learning to drive in an SUV, on the other hand, is a terrible idea. They're so huge, heavy, and overpowered that you can get away with just about anything, and also not face many consequences if you do somehow screw up.
Parent
We need a cars category in slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Feel free to mod me down, but the issue needs to be raised.
We need a cars category. Many of us like to talk about this kind of stuff. ca.driving was one of the most popular newsgroups on ancient Usenet (and had a wonderful signal to noise ratio to boot).
We do not need the invisible article title text featured by the beta index and the firehose.
Back on topic:
I learned to drive in a large vehicle too - my parents' Plymouth Satellite. My mother screamed when I (slightly) misjudged the clearance on the right the first time I used my learner's permit (no harm, no foul, no accident, no ticket).
I suspect I'll do something similar when my wife gets her US license.
Parent
Re:We need a cars category in slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
If you haven't seen it already, go watch Top Gear. It's effectively a British combination of Mythbusters and Car Talk.
Absolutely brilliant, and also one of the best-filmed shows on TV today.
Parent
Re:traction control (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:traction control (Score:5, Insightful)
um... what? ABS increases your stopping distance? Help me out with your logic here since I'm no car pro... ABS works by keeping your tires in the static friction arena and avoiding moving into dynamic friction since static friction is greater. ABS works by feathering the breaking when it detects a tire slipping with respect to the other three, leading to not skidding, leadingto a reduction in your stopping distance.
"a person could break much better than ABS if he/she just knew what he/she was doing..." I'm expecting this type of argument but i have a hard time believing that an engineer couldn't design a better stopping mechanism with ABS than even the best person could do without ABS. Similar to how high tech automatic transmissions can out perform even the best drivers now a days... With modern computers, mechanics can out perform human reflexes.
Your statement sounds like BS to me, but since I don't know anything about your logic I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to enlighten me.
don
Parent
Re:traction control (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, abs brakes do not really help or hurt your stopping distance in most cases, in laboratory conditions keeping static friction works best but on a dirty road just burning rubber often gets better results. But reducing stopping distance is not even what they are supposed to do. They make you able to steer your car while maximum braking, and even if that costs you a few meters of stopping distance, it's well worth it - something I found out first hand when some nice old lady decided to drive onto the highway right in front of me when I was going ~100km/h.
I know they tell you that the direction of front tires have no effect on where the car is going when the brakes are locked, and I'm pretty sure I actually tested it once or twice at safe speed, but nothing prepares for the horror when you realize that there is someone right in front of you and you are closing in fast, there is a truck coming on the opposite lane, and since you forgot to not to turn the wheel while brakes were locked, you have no idea what direction the tires are facing currently, so if you release the brakes until slow enough, you risk driving off-road or even flipping the car.
Would not buy a car without ABS again.
Parent
Re:traction control (Score:5, Informative)
They make you able to steer your car while maximum braking
mod parent up. I've you've ever attended a safe driving course where you train emergency stops you'll know why you need ABS. Without ABS you'll have to let go of the brakes to steer your car around the obstacle. During our practice runs we killed quite a few virtual deer without ABS, whereas with ABS you just steer around the obstacle while keeping the brakes applied.
BTW if you've never experienced ABS you'd be well advised to try it on a quiet road someday. The first time you're likely to think you broke something as ABS makes a terrible noise. As our instructor said: when you start hearing the grinding sound, kick the brakes even further.
Parent
Re:traction control (Score:5, Insightful)
You've never actually been anywhere that it snows, have you?
Do you honestly think the millions of people in Minneapolis, Chicago, Buffalo all use tire chains? Roads would have to be replaced completely every year.
Parent
Re:traction control (Score:5, Insightful)
To some of the above posters: the ones who are saying traction control should be OFF for snow are CORRECT. My '08 Jetta's manual, and common sense about braking in snow, confirm it.
Parent
Re:traction control (Score:5, Insightful)
Locking the brakes up might stop you from being decapitated by stopping your car from going under that trailer to begin with.
You failed highschool physics, didn't you? Once the brakes are locked, the tyres start to slide. Once they start to slide, they have almost no grip at all. With the brakes locked, you slide almost as far on snow as you do on dry tarmac. Try it some time. Just, not near me.
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, having automatically-enforced speed limits would be a tough call.
Federally, they would like to have this automatically enforced (as there is a huge cost related to speeding, accidents, road wear, etc).
But for states and particularly city gov't, speeding tickets are an excellent source of revenue.
Even though the data recorder in your car was sold to you using the "it just tracks info so the manufacturer can improve your cars safety", in reality it is used for:
-to deny you your warrantee, if you have a problem with your car, but it shows you doing something the manufacturer didn't want you to do (or go somewhere they didn't want you to go)
-to charge you with speeding and dangerous driving and whatever else the data record shows, when you get into an accident
And now that the gov't has found out how useful these data recorders are, they are mandating that more cars have them, that they cannot be disabled and that they track more data.
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
If parents think it's ok to have an established curfew for their kids, what if the government thinks it's a good idea to establish a curfew for everyone!?
If parents think it's ok to monitor their kids internet usage, what if the government thinks it's a good idea to monitor everyone's internet usage!?
If parents think it's ok to send their kids to their room when they don't eat their vegetables, what if EVERYONE gets sent to their room when they don't eat their vegetables?!
So no there is no "much more important other side"... unless of course, you're silly.
Parent
Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure californians will feel very safe knowing they can't access every single horsepower to get off that bridge before it collapses in an earthquake.
Riiiiight... so the golden gate bridge is bucking and swaying, cars all around you are coming to a stop... and your going to slam on the gas in your Porsche? You won't get 10 meters before you have an accident on the bridge at the best of times... and your going to do during or in the immediate aftermath of an major earthquake...
Parent
Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but most teenagers can barely drive in the first place, let alone when panicked during an emergency.
Parent
Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car. (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't you the guy who was arguing that it was perfectly safe to eat and use your cellphone while driving?
Back in the day, i'd say yes. A cell phone back then was dialable by touch, and no more distracting than changing the radio station.
Now.. you have to look at it continuously, navigate through nine menus, etc.
As for eating.. it depends on what the food is.
Trying to eat a steak dinner isn't exactly the safest thing in the world, but reaching into a bag and popping gummy bears into your mouth every once in a while is, once again, no more distracting than changing the radio station.
Parent
Re:ban everything (Score:5, Insightful)
thinkofthechildren?
You're all doing it wrong. I remember having the family car as a kid. The point wasn't to go 80+. It was to cruise for a while doing 25-40, and then find a place to stop for a couple of hours. As far as long-term life-impact, the family car is as dangerous parked in a nice secluded spot as it is at top speed. The car's meant to get you to the spot where the trouble starts.
Parent
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
But is it OK if the government decided that police can help enforce a parent's discipline on their dependent minor? Because that's what this is. It's a KEY, people! If you think your kid is a good enough driver to judge when going faster is the more appropriate course of action, give them the unlimited key.
This empowers parents, not the government. I'll have it, thanks!
Parent
Re:*sigh*... (Score:5, Insightful)
"While there are a few situations I've been in where the ability to exceed 80 mph has been critical to safety (getting out from behind dangerous drivers on the freeway who are liable to cause a pileup, for instance), that's not the point."
Is this supposed to be a joke? You're the only one likely be causing any pile ups driving like that. Sheesh.
Parent
Re:*sigh*... (Score:5, Insightful)
You drive like this;
I can either stay behind him and risk being caught in a pileup when he wrecks (not good); slow down to 55mph and cause a traffic hazard for the large pack behind me; or accelerate to 85+mph and pass him.
And the people behind you saw something like this;
Many of these drivers are safe about passing, but one fellow in a large SUV decides he needs to tailgate trucks at literally three feet, while changing lanes at 75mph, trying to get around them. He passes a few slow trucks doing this but continues to tailgate and weave around in dense traffic.
Sound familiar? This is the classic problem with aggressive drivers-- "I'm not a bad driver. That other guy is."
Parent
Re:*sigh*... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then slow the fuck down for 20 seconds and let the guy go ahead of you. If you pass him and he's so aggressive, he'll be on your tail before you know it. Let him go by instead of escalating the situation by driving more aggressively than him.
Parent
Re:*sigh*... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoah, serious rationalizations going on there. If you really cared about being safe you'd drop back sufficiently far to be safe. Slowing down to 55 is a silly suggestion. All you have to do is drive the speed limit and leave at least 2 seconds between you and the car in front (if I can achieve this in L.A. you can probably achieve it anywhere). If someone is tailgating just gradually slow down until they pass.
I was almost in a wreck on the freeway yesterday. Two cars tangled up in the fast lanes and one of them came careening across all the lanes right in front of me and slammed into the sound wall. I got a look at both cars as I went past and they looked destroyed. And this all happened in traffic that was moving no faster than 50 m.p.h. Don't be a jackass. Just slow down.
Parent
Do you have kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Do you have kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't trust your kid to not try to show off to his mates in a dangerous fashion, don't let them have the damn car!
Parent
Even the most reliable (Score:5, Insightful)
I trust my son more than I'd have trusted myself at that age, but still...
I'd like him to be able to use the newer more reliable car, but prevent him from being pressured into being a dick.
Parent
Re: total trust or nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Stats show that males (prob females too these days) stabilize at safe driving only when over 25. Stupid to only allow them to borrow the car when that old. They need the socialization way before then. Slower accidents may cause injury, but are no where near as likely to be fatal.
As for needing to drive over 80. Yup, it is remotely possible that that might happen. They also would need a bottle of whiskey in the car to act as medicinal alcohol in case of accidents. Yeah, right.
Parent
Re: total trust or nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no situation where a teenager needs to drive over 80, probably; that only occurs on the highway, and most parents probably aren't going to let their teenagers drive on the interstate.
My objection to this isn't so much that it prevents kids from doing things they might need to do for safety, but that someone who does the right thing only because they have no opportunity to do the wrong thing isn't really responsible.
Just as with alcohol in the USA, you know those kids -- when they finally get unfettered access to their cars -- are going to drive like maniacs and cause all sorts of wrecks.
Parent
Re:So you are stuck with the crap build in stereo (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently, spelling and grammar help readers understand what others are writing.
Parent
Re:Possible redundancy... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This will work as well (Score:5, Insightful)
Wanking off to a Playmate of the Month is somewhat less likely to kill him than running into a telephone pole at 95 MPH. I'd say it's worth trying to make cars a bit safer where possible.
Parent
True (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:...especially if you get a break on your insura (Score:5, Informative)
I am an actuarial analyst for a major property and casualty insurer in the US.
Insurance rates tend to trend upward because inflation, loss costs, and adjustment/expense costs trend upward. Despite popular belief, they do not trend upward because of the profit contingency loading, and this is due to the fact that personal insurance is a very highly regulated industry in the US. If my company simply decided to increase our loading by even 0.5%, you can be assured that every state Dept. of Insurance would write back immediately, asking why we feel justified raising profit loading by that amount, right before they deny our filings.
In layman's terms, loss costs increase because the value of insured properties such as autos and homes tend to increase. What I mean by this is not depreciation, or the decline in value of a single purchased asset, but rather the idea that the average paid value of assets or services rendered increases over time, due to inflation or technological improvements. Health care 10 years ago did not cost what it does today. Cars didn't cost what they do today. And so forth.
Loss adjustment expenses also increase in coordination with inflation and the cost of doing business.
It is also in part because more people survive accidents that the cost of insurance goes up. More survivors = more injured = higher medical payments. Similarly, more technology = higher repair cost. There is also a loose correlation in that safer vehicles tend to lead to less safe driving habits.
I understand that the average consumer is naive about the nature of insurance. If the public truly wishes to decrease their premiums, then in roughly decreasing order of importance, (1) drive less, (2) drive slower and more carefully, (3) don't buy SUVs or large vehicles. Of course, this only applies to the population as a whole. As an individual insured, your exposure as determined by your insurer has to do with your age, gender, location, credit history (where permitted), type and age of vehicle, and driving record, among other variables. The extent to which a group of insureds incurs greater losses is the extent to which those people pay higher premiums. That is the principle upon which actuarial ratemaking is founded, and if the public is unhappy with how much it costs to insure their assets, then stop having so much loss. After all, do you think insurers actually want to increase rates on their policyholders? They don't, because there is so much competitive pressure to keep rates low, for fear of losing business. In fact, if an insurer files a rate change significantly lower than their indicated rate need, that is a red flag to the DOI, because it raises the possibility of insolvency risk.
If you think insurance is a scam, tell that to the people whose entire earthly possessions were wiped out in Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, or the California wildfires. On the one hand, they'll tell you how insurance saved them, but on the other hand, if you don't live in a risk-prone state, you'll wonder why these people thought living on an island right along Hurricane Alley would be a good idea, and why you should be asked to partially subsidize their choice.
Parent
Re:Hey, Fuck You. (Score:5, Insightful)
And around 25 your brain is physically mature. Go ask a neuroscientist and get a clue, my friend. :)
Parent
Re:Hey, Fuck You. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, traditional societies recognize adulthood at, like 13.
Seriously, traditional societies were totally fucked up. I'm not sure why we should be using them as role models.
Parent
Re:Hey, Fuck You. (Score:5, Insightful)
I just knew this post, and others like it, would fill the comments section of this article. As usual, the two faced kneejerk nature of Slashdot groupthink rears it's ugly head... On one hand, the hive mind insists that parents are responsible and accountable for monitoring and controlling their kids - but each time a tool to actually allow the parents to do that is discussed here, the same hive mind rears up on it's back legs and howls about how unfair it is for parents to monitor and control their kids.
Parent