Ford To Introduce Restrictive Car Keys For Parents 1224
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.
All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:1, Insightful)
This is sure to make every one feel better... until some poor kid gets creamed because he couldn't get out of the way.
Just spank 'em (Score:1, Insightful)
A good old fashioned spanking will set them right.
No need to worry about this hi-tech gadget rubbish, that too in Ford. :)
This will work as well (Score:4, Insightful)
Prior Art? (Score:3, Insightful)
*sigh*... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's absurd. If you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to take responsibility for the way you do it. If a parent can't trust her kid to drive responsibly, she shouldn't be letting him drive in the first place.
While there are a few situations I've been in where the ability to exceed 80 mph has been critical to safety (getting out from behind dangerous drivers on the freeway who are liable to cause a pileup, for instance), that's not the point.
If you can't trust your kid to drive responsibly, get his ass off the road until you can.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Someone tell the European (Score:3, Insightful)
I find that scary. Then again I live in an area where public transport actually works, might be different in a country planned with the assumption that everyone has a car...
Not such a good idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
parents are hypocrites....ford are fools (Score:4, Insightful)
so, why do the parents need to drive over 80, turn off traction control, and turn the stereo up to 11? they all seem like pretty bad ideas whoever is driving the car?
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.
Just as effective... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone tell the European (Score:2, Insightful)
It varies from state to state.
In some states you can get a jr. license at 16. This generally limits when you can be behind the wheel (usually from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.) how many passengers you can have in your vehicle (sometimes only 1 or no other passengers under the age of 18) and mandates that if you get a moving violation you lose your license for a period of time automatically. Again, all of the above vary from state to state, and sometimes even city to city.
In other states you have to be 17 to get a license, and in some parts of the country (NYC for example) you must be 18 in order to obtain a license.
The bigger problem IMHO, is the requirements that are needed to get a license. I'm sure it has changed by now, but 10 years ago or so, to get a license in NJ, you never even had to take the car out into traffic. License tests were administered in coned parking lots. I'm sure there would be far fewer accidents with young people behind the wheel, if the testing to get a license was more stringent, and actually proved that you were a good driver.
Re:Someone tell the European (Score:3, Insightful)
Those are the things you have to deal with when your country grows after the advent of the automobile, and not before. (You could also argue that the problem is both social and civic engineering in nature, but that's a topic for another occasion).
80??? Not much of a limit. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how limiting speed to 80 is very useful at all. That's already extremely fast. For you metric folk:
80 miles per hour = 128.74752 kilometers per hour
Not only that, but some of the most dangerous driving happens in much slower speed zones, for example residential areas, or around schools. How is this going to stop drivers from ploughing over children at 40 mph?
...especially if you get a break on your insurance (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell me something. With all the safety features that have been added to cars in the last 30 years or so, from seat belts to air bags, all peddled as something that would keep our insurance rates from going up, how come everyone's auto insurance keeps going up, *never* down.
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...
ban everything (Score:3, Insightful)
yep, that's one of the reasons why there's a "thinkofthechildren" tag...
This is part of the trend towards restriction being the answer to everything. I'm a liberal, but I have a strong libertarian streak, and it seems like whenever our society confronts a problem, increasingly the answer isn't to understand the cause and think about a solution, but to dumb the process down so much that it's impossible to do anything
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.
Re:*sigh*... (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I suppose I have to tell the story then.
I was driving on the US Interstate, going about 80 mph like everyone else on the road. I normally am quite conservative about following distance, and was happily chugging along behind a couple of trucks when we start to be overtaken by a traffic pack.
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.
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. He's still tailgating people, but it's reasonably clear for a little while. I use all of my 100 horsepower to gain sufficient passing speed (85-90 mph) that I won't be near him for long to be caught in one of his crazy maneuvers, pass him, and continue at 90 mph for a while to get away from this guy.
On open road like the Interstate, speed isn't what's dangerous; it's maneuvering at speed. Driving 90mph in a straight line for a little while is a lot safer than staying behind some nut who is one truck-retread-blow away from causing a serious accident, and in that circumstance slowing down wasn't an option due to all the people behind me.
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.
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!
Re:You're committing a logical fallacy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed... current empirical evidence indicates that the US government will use any means in their grasp to establish and run a police state. Buying a car that gives them control over your actions is ... well, naive at best, fucking stupid at worst.
Until the US government decides to show that they are not trying to install a police state, there is absofuckinglutely NO reason to trust them. period.
Re:Overtaking 18-wheelers (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need to do faster than 80 MPH to pass a truck, then the truck is probably going plenty fast, and you have no reason to pass it.
Re:Overtaking 18-wheelers (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you _have_ to overtake the huge truck? Isn't it going in the same direction as you are?
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.
Re:in north dakota... (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on the state. In my state (Illinois), the minimum age is 16, although other states (low pop. density or heavy agricultural industry) have the age as low as 14.
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.
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.
Indeed: downloaded music.. hacked car keys. (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't wait till the first kit comes out to hack car keys.
Adults will use it to keep the dealers from gouging them on new keys (because hardware stores definitely won't be able to replicate them), and kids will take advantage of it to kill the restrictions.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you never avoided an accident on the highway by speeding up?
I'd daresay that it's a *better* option in many cases than slamming on the brakes -- you already know what's in front of you, but might not necessarily be able to tell how far away the nearest car behind you is, or correctly judge that driver's stopping distance.
That all said, the Focus isn't a terribly thrilling car to drive, and probably shouldn't be driven much above 80mph as it is. This would be a much more interesting story if they were including the feature on the Mustang to start.
The decision to lock out the traction control toggle also seems a bit bizarre. I don't know of anybody (teenagers or adults) who have ever actually turned it off.
I could see these "keys" becoming mandatory for people on provisional licenses, and would actually approve of such use (within reason). Although there are cases where it's reasonably safe to drive fast, one needs some experience before developing a good sense of that.
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."
Re:*sigh*... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm almost 26, and even I remember how ridiculously dangerously almost all my friends and I used to drive when we were 16. Lets face it - when you get a car for the first time, it's cool to drive it really fast. Sadly, the mix of inexperience and immaturity really does lead to a lot of accidents:
http://aaanewsroom.net/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=7&ArticleID=601 [aaanewsroom.net].
I remember how annoying some of the driving laws in my state were when I was under 18. For example, I couldn't carpool because there was a law limiting how many under-18s were allowed in a car without adult supervision. If we don't want the government controlling how we raise our kids, we should have the freedom to do it ourselves. In this case, this is a fairly innocuous measure; almost no roads in the US have speed limits anywhere near 80 mph, and traction control shouldn't be turned off by a novice driver.
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.
Re:Someone tell the European (Score:3, Insightful)
I find that scary. Then again I live in an area where public transport actually works, might be different in a country planned with the assumption that everyone has a car...
Indeed. You are blessed by living in a small, densely-populated, urban country. Assuming people have cars is the only thing that works when you have vast areas that are lightly populated. You can drive from, say, Oulu to Helsinki in a workday. That doesn't scale when you're talking about an area 36 times larger.
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.
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.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:2, Insightful)
In Australia, this would be quite popular I dare say. We have a Provisional (P Plates) license that during the first year limits users to 80km/h and during the next two years limits them to 100km/h even though just about every freeway has a 100km restriction.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:4, Insightful)
.
The government sets speed limits.
It sets the standards you must meet to drive a certain type of vehicle. It limits the type of vehicle that can be used on certain roads.
If you own a high-performance classic that pumps more pollutants in the air than a steam locomotive the government can restrict your driving to the Labor Day Parade.
But it was the private insurance companies that brought an abrupt end to the muscle car era of the sixties.
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.
Not a solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Most accidents involving teens aren't 80mph freeway crashes - they're taking slower roads too fast. I was in a wreck (car written off, I walked away with bruises) with a friend driving - he tried to take a roundabout at 50 instead of 30 on a wet night. The problem isn't a function of power, speed or traction - it's recklessness. Trust me - I was in a freaking Metro when it happened. Limiting the speed to 80 just means that kids will get their kicks driving 60 in a 30 zone or something similar.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but it's a foot in the door.
And that's how all the fabulous gov't regulations happen. They all start of with "To keep you safe, we need to...".
In the US, they stopped bothering with incremental regulations. They just get the first increment, then ignore the limits (see NSA security letters, secret wiretapping, PATRIOT act misuse).
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"
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.
Re:traction control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overtaking 18-wheelers (Score:4, Insightful)
Accelerating from 50 MPH to 80 MPH in something like a Civic is going to take you around 5 seconds (based on 0-60 in 10 seconds). In 5 seconds, you have already covered 160 feet more than the semi, and they don't get much longer than around 120 feet (a Turnpike Double is two 53-foot trailers). So you've already passed the semi by the time you hit 80 MPH.
So many people on this board are trying to justify inexperienced teenagers driving faster than 80 MPH for 'safety', yet every example given is laughable.
When I was younger, I use to drive fast (85+) in my old 4-cylinder Mustang (yes, they made four-banger Mustangs), but I'm probably lucky that my wimpy engine limited my speed.
There is no good reason to drive so fast, especially if you are still learning to drive.
Re:traction control (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually no. Traction control will not stop you from having to rock the car out. What do you think it is, a floatation tool?
maximum traction and traction control, are not related. You do realize what traction control actually does right? During overspin it stops tires from spinning or cuts their power (most non SUV vehicles are not built to be capable of simply transferring power from one wheel to another). Thinking traction control provides traction is as dangerous as thinking that ABS decreases your stopping distance. Both are fatal flaws in driving philosophy. Both do the opposite, and that is exactly what they are intended for.
Now lets think further. We're talking a car that is extremely light, therefore will need to rock out of even small amounts of snow to get moving. How small?
How about snow you just DROVE through, but now you're at a stoplight. Suddenly, you're stuck. Wow, traction control sure helps here, that is, until you can't get out because it won't let you rock the wheels fast enough to get out. Think this doesn't happen? Try living somewhere with actual snow.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, never in my life have I had to speed up to avoid an accident.
Just like all the others claiming its nice to do so, you sir do not belong behind the wheels of a car. The reasoning behind you speeding up to avoid the collision are all indicators of you being unable to proper factor in your environment.
You should at all times be aware of your surroundings so should the need to get away arise you can safely go around the trouble; if the car behind you is too close you should take the foot off the speeder and let him get by you since he is a hazard to both you and himself. At all times you should be keeping a safe breaking distance to the car in front of you - again this might mean taking the foot off the pedal and easing back a bit, live with it, getting to your destination 30 seconds later might end up saving your life.
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!
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. :)
Re:traction control (Score:1, Insightful)
Try living somewhere with actual snow.
People that live where it snows use tire chains, not some sort of "rock the wheels" technique. If you are driving a ford focus in the snow without tire chains, you have bigger things to worry about than the ability to turn traction control off.
Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car. (Score:1, Insightful)
bullshit, I managed to scape a patrol car when I was 15 and driving without license.
Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car. (Score:2, Insightful)
Riiiiight.. so the golden gate bridge is bucking and swaying, cars all around you are coming to a stop... and your going to slam on the gas in your Porsche?
They kept driving over the Tacoma bridge while it was bucking and swaying...
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.
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.
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.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:4, Insightful)
oh, i have no doubt that your ford escort saved your life. especially if it was totaled and you survived. i just mean in general more steel doesn't necessarily equate to more safety.
but it's sorta like the prisoner's dilemma. i mean, if you drive a small light vehicle and you get hit by a big heavy SUV, you'll get a lot more messed up than the SUV driver. and that's the scenario a lot of people focus on. but that kind of thinking would lead to everyone driving bigger and heavier vehicles, which would result in deadlier accidents. whereas, if everyone realized that safety has more to do with things like seat belts, ECS [cnn.com], crumple zones, etc. in addition to driving responsibly (and choosing vehicles responsibly), then the roads would be a lot safer, and accidents would be less deadly. but as it stands right now, people who buy big heavy SUVs only thinking of their own safety just ruin things for people driving more sensible vehicles (and puts them in danger).
now, wanting a more protective bumper is perfectly sensible. and there are lot of other ways of protecting yourself on the road that don't create more hazardous driving conditions. that's what concerned car buyers should focus on.
Re:...especially if you get a break on your insura (Score:3, Insightful)
Both were declared state emergencies. Those without insurance still got reimbursed for their losses.
"Insurance" isn't an inherent scam, but MANY of the companies offering insurance are cheaters liars and scammers.
See Allstate offering ridiculously, illegally low levels of coverage. See any of the insurers that up tons of risk, and teeter on the edge of bankruptcy when they have to pay-up. See insurance companies offering plans that have fine print to specifically EXCLUDE the MOST LIKELY form of natural disaster in an area, so that the plan you're paying for is utterly worthless.
Conversely, I also believe it is being forced upon those that don't need it in many situations:
Those who drive safe, and/or very little, still pay ridiculous amounts for required automotive liability insurance in some states, because it is blanket required. Those who could afford to pay off more than the liability amount aren't allowed to, unless they jump through ridiculous hoops.
Home-owner's insurance for a cheap house in a very low-risk area should not be required for a mortgage... I consider that equivalent to a hidden premium levied on numerous home buyers. And for the reasons above, it often doesn't help, anyhow...
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
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if that's true, you didn't accelerate to more than 80 mph in the space of an intersection, so the point is moot.
Re:traction control (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sure, it's all fun and games until (Score:3, Insightful)
I give it 96 hours before the insurance companies change the conditions of their policies to deny payouts if the device is damaged in any way, including damage from an accident.
Re:...especially if you get a break on your insura (Score:1, Insightful)
If you think insurance is a scam, tell that to the people whose entire earthly possessions were wiped out in Hurricanes Katrina and Ike
I remember hearing a lot from people who didn't get anything because their homes were (according to the insurance companies) destroyed by the flooding (i.e. storm surge) of Katrina, and not high winds, and they didn't have flood insurance because they were rather far inland and weren't in a flood-prone region.
Don't get me wrong; the rest of your analysis is spot-on. But the profit motive in trying to find ways to reject claims can't be ignored.
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.
Re:*sigh*... (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't always work.
If I'm on my motorbike then someone tailgating you is deadly. There have been many occasions where I was sticking to the speed limit and someone was tailgating me. If I'd have hiccuped and touched the brakes he'd have been into the back of me and killed me.
So what do you do? Try and pull over and wave him past - sure if there's space. But sometimes even a liberal arm wave and a wide stretch of clear road won't get them past you. Once I even pulled over to the side of the road and he pulled up behind me - turns out he was using me to judge the speed of the twisty road and wanted me to carry on doing so.
So when I'm being closely tailgated then I occasionally judge that it's safer to exceed the speed limit to get him off my tail - then pull into another lane/layby to get him past.
Don't underestimate the advantage of acceleration to save yourself when someone jumps the lights either - a hard acceleration past the speed limit has saved my life at least twice at traffic lights. Might I have got points on my licence if a policeman had seen me? Possibly. Would I be dead if I had stopped/carried on at 30mph? Absolutely!
Re:No second chances... (Score:3, Insightful)
The first website you list, apart from being terribly unprofessional, gives statistics suggesting that, in ages between 1 and 29, automotive accidents are the leading cause of death. While the percentage of deaths is certainly higher for teens from 15-19, this is also the period when most people in the US learn to drive, and would certainly seem understandable given that.
The second seems absurdly inaccurate and almost blatantly misleading if not entirely incorrect. Apart from considering a huge time period (1995 to 2004), and listing meaningless raw numbers as something that should matter, the numbers themselves, and especially the percentages, can't possibly be right if interpreted in the most obvious way. Looking at the data from the NHTSA [dot.gov], for example, there were around 37,000 auto accident deaths every year during the period, and teen drivers accounted for nowhere near the "36.2 percent" that the article implied. Taking a single year, 2006 (the most recent), fatal accidents of those from 16-20 were significantly outnumbered by accidents in other age groups, and accounted for only 13% of fatal accident deaths; while these numbers are relatively meaningless for the purpose of making conclusions, they still contradict those in the article.
A better consideration, instead of looking at deaths per age group by raw numbers, which is useless, or deaths per age group per number of drivers in the group, which is somewhat useful, would be to look at deaths indexed by the number of years the driver had had a licence, per number of drivers in each group. It is not obvious that lack of responsibility is the major factor in traffic-related deaths rather than lack of experience, even if many sources seem to jump to conclusion with insufficient evidence.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:3, Insightful)
Being from the UK I'm suspecting more and more that speed cameras actually cause more accidents than they prevent. Drivers all start looking at their speedometers rather than the road and everyone slows down just before they hit the speed camera marks making it dangerous.
Also, sometimes speed cameras are placed in stupid places. One I drive by every day is just before a crossing so woe betide the poor sod who crosses just as someone's not paying attention to the road and staring at their speed instead.
Re:traction control (Score:4, Insightful)
I've experienced what you said once, driving way too fast and realising the next corner was much steeper than I thought. I'd locked the brakes and started turning into the corner, but with no effect. When I'd slowed down a bit I released the brakes a little, the tyres bit and I immediately got thrown through the dry stone wall on the opposite side of the road.
However, having one car with ABS, and one without, I do think ABS also reduces stopping distance. A dog ran out in front of my Ford Focus and I slammed on the brakes and stopped in an incredibly short distance. In my other car, I'd have skidded and I'm pretty sure I'd have hit the dog.
Re:Someone tell the European (Score:3, Insightful)
That take place at the school that they are already at. And I'm pretty sure that buses generally take kids to and from school.
As he suggested, I'm guessing you live in a much more compact area. At my old high school, buses DO take kids home from school - if you leave school when it ends. If you stay extra for sports, or any other extracurricular activity, then you have to arrange your own transport. The area is so sparsely populated that the school was 45 miles away from my house. Imagine a radius 45-50 miles and explain how all the buses are going to be recalled back to the school to take home the 1 or 2 children who were on there routes and needed to stay. Parents? Most parents don't work anywhere near the school either. If they had to return to take the kids home it'd be ridiculous.
So, you do the obvious and just let the 16 year olds drive. 16 year olds ARE sucky drivers, but they're sucky because they're inexperienced, not because they're 16. Make it 18, and 18 year olds are sucky drivers (actually they still are IMHO). Make it 32 and 32 year olds will be suck drivers because drivers will always be sucky the first few years they're driving.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Saturn was a mess (and literally *bounced* off of the Volvo). My car needed a new bumper and a bit of paint*.
Err ... yes? The part of the Saturn that is designed as a crumple zone hit a part of your Volvo that is not designed as a crumple zone. As intended by the designers, the crumple zone of the Saturn ... crumpled, and the read of your Volvo, which isn't designed to crumple, did not. What else should have happened, in your opinion?
Perhaps the reverse might be useful... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also what everyone seems to be missing. You brake incredibly quickly, whereas most cars will take 5 to 10 seconds to get from 60 to 80 miles/hour and at least several seconds to gain even 10 miles/hour once you are at highway speed. Not exactly effective for avoiding an accident.
(sorry, no reference on the acceleration stats, just basing it on experience. Mea culpa if anyone has stats stating otherwise.)
Re:traction control (Score:4, Insightful)
The main reason ABS is a good thing is that you can still steer the car, which you can't do if locked up. Also the static friction coefficient is *higher* than the dynamic friction coefficient.
Re:Even the most reliable (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have any kids, do you?
Re:traction control (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup. Everyone should find a nice large empty parking lot, or a wide flat empty road, and give their ABS a try. Many cars actually vibrate your foot on the pedal quite dramatically as well, and people who are not expecting it will actionall STOP BREAKING since it startles them. PLEASE LEARN HOW YOUR CAR BEHAVES!
The first time is snows, take your car to a parking area (get permission ar at least let security know you're not doing donuts for fun). Drive hard, try to swerve (safely), learn how your car handles when avoiding imaginary objects. Learn it's skidding behavior. Learn it's breaking behavior (especially how it handles turning while breaking hard).
In my opinion, every county should have a place where you are required to go within 30 days of registering a new vehicle, and make every driver insured to drive that car go through a vehicle handling course to learn how to handle it properly. This small expense ($20 per driver sounds fair), would mean the ability to lower insurance rates, and far fewer accidents.
Newer cars in the mid and upper price ranges now not only deploy ABS combined with traction control, but many are equipped with intelligent brake steering as well. Even without pressing the brake pedal, steering the car in certain ways makes the car apply breaks to specific wheels. This dramatically improves handling and limits your tail end sliding out on you when performing avoidance maneuvers. When breaking, pressure is applied to different wheels individually, and on really well designed cars, ABS will only trigger on wheels that it detects slipage on.
I was quite surprised reading the manual for my van that it not only had ABS and traction control, but that the rear end actually employs hydrolics to that regardless of load, the rear end is allways level woth the ground, and it keeps the rear end a maximum distance up (lower to ground = more stable). Many vans you'll notice rise up on their springs when unloaded, and this causes the rear end to be more top heavy. My van also deploys 4 wheen steering, further helping rear end spin outs. The breaking system calibrates breaking performance from front and rear based on the load detectedby the hydrolics. When I attach a hitch and trailer, breaking also changes somewho to help prevent loss of trailer control, especially with break-equipped 6 wire trailer hookups.
Wait...unable to disable traction control? (Score:2, Insightful)
ABS & Traction control are GOOD things (Score:5, Insightful)
Traction control and ABS brakes are for people who want to feel safe without being safe.
That is demonstrably not true [wikipedia.org].
ABS brakes will put you under the trailer. Locking the brakes up might stop you from being decapitated by stopping your car from going under that trailer to begin with.
If you are that close to the trailer you are driving WAY too close to begin with. ABS is for stopping when the traction sucks and locking the brakes would induce a dangerous skid. ABS is no substitute for safe driving technique.
ABS won't let you lock your brakes up at all, which can get you mangled up in rush hour traffic if you're not used to it.
A) If you aren't that used to the car you shouldn't be driving in dangerous conditions. B) If ABS comes on and the weather isn't horrendous, you are driving WAY too close. C) If the weather is horrendous, you should be providing even more distance to the car ahead anyway and ABS will help you stop faster than without.
You are wearing that mandated seat belt, yes? Ever try to think of unbuckling it so you can dive for the floor in a panic situation?
No. That would be retarded. I cannot even conceive of a reasonably likely scenario where I would ever want to do that while moving. I'm also not aware of case where that would have saved anyone. Want the best odds of survival in an accident? Wear your seatbelt.
FWIW, I lived in the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County area for 25 years without needing snow chains.
I lived in Geauga County [wikipedia.org], right in the heart of the snowbelt [wikipedia.org] for 20 years and my parents still live there. You are right, snow chains are not necessary there, though snow tires aren't a bad idea if you have the cash to get some. I did however keep a set of snow chains just in case and did have occasion to use them once. However go to Tahoe or various parts of the Rockies and snow chains are not only a good idea they are often required.
It's my opinion that ABS and traction control are NOT needed if the driver is properly trained in local conditions.
Normally you are correct in most locations. ABS and traction control are no substitute for safe driving technique. That does not however make them useless. They demonstrably improve safety which is why their use has been mandated.
Re:Won't help much (Score:3, Insightful)
>before you know it fully autonomous vehicles are mandatory.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
For me it's a vision of Paradise -- having my own car but not having to spend time driving it. (Plus, presumably, under automatic control the commute would go faster.)
And no I can't take a bus because there isn't any public transportation between home and work, and while I do ride my bike I don't do it often because it's a 110 km ride round-trip and I'm not tough enough to do that every day.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:3, Insightful)
Never say never. I agree in general but sometimes acceleration is the safest course.
Example1: I looked into my rearview and saw a large car closing quickly on me (with its brakes locked up, sliding sideways).
Example2: Passing a semi truck, almost ahead of it going about 90 and I notice a ladder across my lane ahead. Not enough time to break behind the semi.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which isn't a good thing since your body is weaker and more expensive than everything else. The point of the crumple zones is to be destroyed to absorb the energy of an impact instead of you. There is metal that actually keeps things from getting to you but that's after the crumple zones.
I'd take a totaled car over massive internal injuries.
Who tagged this DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:traction control (Score:3, Insightful)
Crashing into another car on the highway will likely result in a multiple car collusion and many deaths and injuries. Doing you best to drive off the road would only endanger yourself, thus I maintain the OPs recommended course of action is 100% selfish in nature.
Re:*sigh*... (Score:3, Insightful)
"if I can achieve this in L.A. you can probably achieve it anywhere). "
oh, you're that jackass~
heh.