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.
Someone tell the European (Score:4, Interesting)
In Finland, where I live, driving cars is for over 18 year olds only. While an 18-year-old is by no mean (emotionally) an adult, it's still a far cry from 16.
So, how does it work in the states? I understand 16-year-olds are allowed to drive under some circumstances?
Re:Someone tell the European (Score:3, Interesting)
Is 80 even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just as effective... (Score:3, Interesting)
Already done. You can get modules that plug into the OBDII port (or CANBUS on the latest cars) that record every piece of info every couple of seconds, after which it can be uploaded via USB.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:1, Interesting)
I get your Orwellian fear brother, but everywhere I've been so far, the government is already limiting your performance on the road.
Speedlimits, cops, traffic lights and signs etc. They're all there to limit your performance. And they were put there by the government, because they, umm, kinda own the public roads.
Re:*sigh*... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and there are a few situations where it is less safe to wear a seat belt. However, these occurances are dwarfed by the number of situations where a seatbelt saves your life. So you wear it.
I'm young enough to remember how much of an idiot I was when I first started driving. However, back in the early 90's we didn't have this fancy-schmancy MyKey technology. So my dad bought me a 1980 Chevy LUV with a broken radio and no A/C.
It might have gone faster than 75mph, but the horror-inducing sound it made at that speed ensured that I never even tried. I never had friends distracting me while driving (because they wouldn't be caught dead in my ride). I never drove in bad weather because the wipers didn't work. I was convinced he hated me, but now I realize that he was a genius that loved me very much.
Re:Overtaking 18-wheelers (Score:1, Interesting)
Dude, where do you live that two-lane roads with a 75+ mph speed limit are common? Do such roads even exist? Do you actually think 80 mph is a reasonable speed on a road designed for 65 mph (or less)? Is a truck going 75 mph in a 65 mph zone that much of an impediment to your schedule? Alternatively, is it reasonable to do 80 mph to pass a truck traveling at 65 mph on such a two-lane road, instead of a safer 70 mph?
Don't get me wrong - I'm firmly in the camp of "speed limits are usually set too low", but I'm finding it difficult to envision any reasonable scenario for your complaint. Maybe a two lane road through salt flats...
- T
Re:*sigh*... (Score:2, Interesting)
There's no way to see how someone drives over the Internet, so I can see how you might make that judgment, but I more often get criticism from passengers from driving *too* cautiously: stopping at lights that I could have made it through, not passing people when I could have, leaving large amounts of following distance, and so on.
You would have had to see this guy to believe how badly he was driving. I do many thousands of miles on the interstate every year, and this guy is the worst (non-drunk) driver I have ever seen. Most people on the road (and I've seen a lot of them) are courteous and don't warrant extreme measures to get around; this fellow was the exception.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:4, Interesting)
Living in Atlanta, driving on 400, 285, and 85 everyday and during rush hour and not on rush hour, at least until 4 weeks ago.
Why yes, I've never had to suddenly increase my speed to avoid an accident. Braking, shifting lanes, and not being in the fast lanes usually keeps me from dying on the more perilous occasions.
Yes, I said that with a straight face.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:2, Interesting)
...what if your government thinks it is a good idea to limit performance for all drivers?
Aren't car manufacturers already choking the power of their engines by software for their more high-end cars? Although I have no proof, I am almost sure that they do this already for the cars sold in Finland, at least.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:2, Interesting)
Aren't car manufacturers already choking the power of their engines by software for their more high-end cars?
Is Finland flat?
The way they started regulating cars in the bad old days of the Dick Nixon 55 era[1] was to limit the rated speeds that tires could be used. Limiting engine performance would limit being able to go up steep hills and sounds dangerous.
[1] Which took 20 years to correct.
Re:Not such a good idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Either you're a pre-teen or you've forgotten how most teenagers' minds work. How on earth do you expect to create a relationship of trust when you start off the conversation with "I don't trust you, so here's a tool to help reinforce that."?
If you don't trust a teen to drive, then don't let them get a license. Demonstrating that lack of trust by gimping a tool isn't the solution (yes, I consider a car to be a tool, since I just use mine to get from point a to point b). It may be a band-aid, but band-aids are crappy remedies, not things that actually fix the problem (which is this lack of trust). It's not like you start building a trusting relationship when they turn 16 - you've had the past decade and a half to work on that.
Disclosure: I'm only 21, but I consistently get rated late-thirties in all of those stupid "real age" tests.
Re:Someone tell the European (Score:2, Interesting)
The US is such a large area and the driving requirements vary greatly from place to place.
Here's my story: I got my license in Iowa (hot summers, cold winters, lots of flat terrain). I took driving classes at my high school as a normal class; 4 months of class, 20 hours of driving, ~40 hours of simulator (lame) and a final exam involving a 20 minute drive on interstates, 5-way intersections, parking, etc.
Because it was Iowa, the driving time naturally occurred in rain, snow and sun. The class showed rather horrifying pictures and videos of people in accidents and we had guest speakers who talked about driving safe. On the last day of class, the state motor vehicles department came to my school and right in class took my photo and handed me my new license. This was the only time the government was involved.
This experience taught me to be a very good driver in all road conditions, and I got my license at 16 1/2. I think I was a better driver then than most people on the road today! I am still astonished at how many people manage to somehow spinout on ice going 5mph!
It's unfortunate that my experience is not common. I don't know anyone else personally who had the same level of driving training in any country. People are quick to pick some age and call it good or put heavy restrictions on youth, where I believe that having a good, accessible program like I had will really help raise driving ability at any age.
By the way, in almost all states, once you turn 18, you can just show up at the DMV, take a written test, driving road test (or sometimes only cones), and drive away with your new license. No training necessary!
Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car. (Score:3, Interesting)
If his friend hadn't been able to floor the pedal in his car, he would not have gotten to the hospital in time and would not have survived.
Incidentally, his friend was on learning permit and they were chased by police for about 6 miles through town. They gave him a warning that if they ever caught him doing anything wrong while driving after this they'd not be lenient.
Anyway, I think this, while perhaps noble, is a misguided idea. The ability to fully control speed, traction control, and other features can be critical in extreme cases, such as emergencies. It would suck if your kid got stuck on a train track, traction control making them unable to move, and they got hit by a train. Extreme, but possible.
I'd rather let the kid have free reign over the speedometer than knowingly limit the vehicle.
Now all this is sort of extreme cases, perhaps extreme enough to be bad examples. 80mph should be fast enough for most situations, and even in emergencies, its unlikely to be controllable at 80mph in a city in a hospital rush scenario. If the limit is that high, it should face few issues. Traction control is stupid though. Limiting the speed to 80mph should be enough to deter any kind of street racing behavior.
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.
Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but I'll bite your nice bit of trolling since you also seem to be one of the unsafe drivers around here.
AC are a nice feature, but should be inoperable while the car is moving, ditto for the radio (in fact as I recall you are not allowed to fiddle with the radio while driving in Britain), same for GPS, seats and map lights.
Clicking from turn signals is needed since you get audible feedback from your action so you don't need to look at the dashboard to see its blinking. Also the clicking actually tells you if one of the lights has gone out since it will be clicking faster - again a safety measure.
Cruise control should be abolished, it just helps the driver falling a sleep - and on top of that people I've seen with cruise control take their foot of both pedals - this means their reaction time is now measured in seconds.
Getting rid of all seats except the drivers is just silly and kinda removes any insightful input you might have wanted to come across. Any passenger in the car should however not be allowed to engage the driver in casual talk.
Not being native English I have no idea what "tilt" or "the tach" is.
Worrying innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope that I am not the only one that is worried by this sort of thing. It seems that we are constantly restricting the freedoms of our children to the point where we are quite possibly damaging them mentally.
Being young means taking silly risks occasionally. Yes, a few will take a risk that is too big and kill or seriously injure themselves and that is very sad but if that means that millions of others can experience life than I think it's a price worth paying.
It will be interesting to see what happens to society as these children grow up and begin to run the show. Will they realize the importance of freedom and cause another 60s style freedom revolution or will they continue the trend to ever more draconian control.
On a personal note though now that I am passed the driving stupidly fast phase of my life I would acutally quite like a GPS based speed limiter on my car so that I never get a speeding fine.
Re:traction control (Score:2, Interesting)
Snow tires? (Score:4, Interesting)
Tire chains are illegal in most states because they destroy the pavement very quickly. A quality set of snow tires are more than adequate in most cases. I recommend Blizzaks -- had a pair for 5 years and it was a dream using them in winter compared to all-seasons.
It amazes me the amount of people that will choose to white-knuckle their driving during every snow storm, or get in an accident with their $25k car causing thousands in damages, rather than spend $300 on a set of snow tires that will last for 5+ winters.
Won't help much (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Most accidents don't happen on motorways (the only place where speeds of >80 mph would be likely). You'd have to have location-dependent speed limits to make significant inroads. This is already being done, the new Nissan GT-R has (in the Japanese version) a 120 mph speed limiter which is swiched off automatically when you're on a racetrack; it uses GPS to decide where you are. IMO, this is a nightmare scenario. It reduces the driver's freedom even more, and encourages people to just drive at the governed limit blindly, instead of paying attention to circumstances. The lack of dynamics in the traffic around you (everyone going at the same speed) lulls you into a false sense of security (see below).
A governed limit means there'll be small differences in speed due to calibration errors, etc, which means people will be overtaking with 1 mph speed difference all the time. In Europe, trucks already have a speed limiter, and as a result you get huge tailbacks behind two trucks going 50+/-1 mph side-by-side. To prevent this, you'd have to mandate radar-guided cruise control as well, and before you know it fully autonomous vehicles are mandatory.
2. Most accidents aren't caused by speeding, but by not paying attention. This means that having a speed limiter won't have much effect, and due to the false sense of security it provides, may increase the number of incidents.
Re:We need a cars category in slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Top Gear is a show made by and made for the Lost Boys of Never Never Land. It's main presenter is the quintessential example of a boy who never grew up. On occasion, it produces the odd worthwhile comment. But overall it is a fairly juvenile affair, concerned more with how fast each vehicle can go from 0-60, and whether the exterior look "cool", than with say mileage or cost.
They review executive class cars on private race tracks and rate their performance on how much the experience evokes memories of bygone go-kart races. In every episode, the presenters drive far too quickly down country lanes, all the while taking their eyes off the road to stare into the in car cameras and deliver quips more usually encountered in video game magazines. The cars are always seem to be Italian or German affairs that the viewers will never be able to afford.
Predictably, it sells like hot cakes. As a younger male, I can no longer afford to insure a car.
I don't like that show.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:traction control (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to own a small MR2 spyder (mid engine two seater) and i tried this on an road late one night... now I was only going 45-55 mph, and i'm sure this is different with a big ass SUV or something, but that thing stopped so fast I'm not sure i could have turned if i wanted to. I was too busy being pushed into my seat belt.
I know, I know... sporty car on a dry road, not really going that fast, but damn the stopping speed was impressive!
It makes me shake my head at all the people who tell you about accelerating out of danger. I tried that in that same car when some guy was coming up behind me ready to plow into me on the freeway... and all i remember is that nothing happened. Given a choice between the two, decelerating out of danger will keep you safe 49 out of 50 times more than the opposite.
Re:...especially if you get a break on your insura (Score:3, Interesting)
"It is also in part because more people survive accidents that the cost of insurance goes up. More survivors = more injured = higher medical payments. Similarly, more technology = higher repair cost. There is also a loose correlation in that safer vehicles tend to lead to less safe driving habits. "
which is why my motorcycle is only $278 per year!
Re:Snow tires? (Score:3, Interesting)
To hell with snow tires. Walk the parking lots and look at tires. Most of these idiots are driving in the winter on almost BALD TIRES.
Re:We need a cars category in slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Top Gear isn't meant to be a serious show, telling you about what the next car you buy should be. It's entertainment.
If you want a monotone sales pitch, carefully going over how many cup holders there are, and how you can fit your family's luggage in the boot, with space for your golf clubs, go and watch Fifth Gear instead.
Just don't blame me when you throw your TV through the window to relieve the boredom.
grumble (Score:1, Interesting)
Why should ANY street car in the US go over 80?
Traction control is dangerous sometimes...
If they really want to improve safety in the car while teenagers are driving it... they should install a cellphone jammer in the car.
Good idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like those would be decent design goals for every Ford vehicle for every Ford driver except for the traction control thing. Of course they could make a button or something that enables/disables traction control. I don't know what it is used for so I'd rather have a toggle rather than kick the feature entirely.
At first I was going to moan about parents regulating their kids driving. This looks more like how the damn cars need to be designed from the get go any way. Kids can race anything almost anywhere. Equal speed limits is just something that makes skill stand out a bit more anyway so this won't have any real effect. O.k. it'll keep the drivers of these vehicles from racing unregulated cars. Heck, I bet even with GPS and all sorts of parental monitoring that kids could find a way to race and if any one gets a red flag on their monitoring or get pulled over for anything than they are automatically disqualified.
Useless feature (Score:1, Interesting)
If you feel that your kid would need such a feature, don't let him or her get a drivers licence, period. Safe driving is all about making the right decisions under a given set of circumstances. Not going over the speed limit of 80 mph is an easy one, even if factoring in things like peer pressure of other adulescents sitting in the car.
The feature does however give you a false sense of security -- "My kid is safe because he or she can't drive more than 80." That is complete, utter and very dangerous bullshit.
Accidents at 50 mph can be just as deadly and easy to produce than at faster speeds. Some little anecdote to illustrate that: I used to live in a rural area, directly next to a quite sharp turn that leads to a quite narrow bridge, which was the only way to get back from some popular disco. Living next to it was no fun, since on average we'd get one car per weekend not making the turn, crashing into the bridge rail, penetrating the bridge rail and dropping into the riverbed, missing the bridge and dropping into the riverbed, ...
Sometimes there where two or three weeks without accident, sometimes there'd be 3 in a single weekend. Since we felt compelled to respond whenever possible -- what choice do you have if you live right next to it anyway? -- we got to see them in quite a level of detail. Most of the victims where quite young. Many of them where quite nasty, about 1 to 10 per year died, most survived though.
None of the accidents involved speeds in excess of 50 mph. None of them could have been avoided by this 'feature'. Most of them could have been avoided if the parents had been more dilligent. Ask yourself the question if your child can be trusted with a car; this can be answered without taking into account such 'features'. If he or she can't be trusted with a car that can be driven at 90 mph, there is no way in hell one should trust them with a car that can 'only' do 80 mph.
The answer of this question -- do you trust your kid to drive a car or not -- can result in that your child can't get a drivers license with 16; this may sound hard, but it is the only responsible choice.
If you really want to cut down on teen drivers accident rate, after your kid got a license, consider driving one or two thousand miles with him or her -- with them driving of course. Also, you might want to get involved in a lobbying effort to improve what passes for 'drivers education' in the US, because most of the rest of the developed world thinks yours is a bad joke at best and cross neglicence at worst.
Re:traction control (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. I LIVE IN BUFFALO (Well, actually a nearby suburb of Buffalo, but downtown is just 10 minutes away. Close enough.) and I can tell you for a FACT that not only does no-one here use chains in the winter, but chains and "studded tires" (tires with small metal bumps embedded in the rubber) are Illegal in New York State.
What do we drive? Well, pretty much what everybody else in the country drives. Only we have a heavier mix of SUV's with full 4 wheel drive than you might see in, say, California. Although we actually have a justification for having them, as the roads are impassable without 4 Wheel Drive on several occasions throughout the winter here.
Not to say that it's like living in the Rockies during the winter, but "Lake Effect" snow can be a real bitch to deal with in a small car. Let's all be honest here: Your boss isn't going to take the excuse that you can't get to work because your Pious (I mean, Prius) can't get out of the driveway because of 6 inches of snow. Those vehicles are all fine and well for areas with sunshine all year round, but since some of us live in areas with actual weather, we can't afford to drive a matchbox car, even if we wanted.
I drive a Jeep Liberty. No, not the most fuel efficient vehicle on the road, but not a monster either. It has full 4 wheel drive when I need it, and fair fuel economy to boot. (Better than my old '98 Bonneville, that's for sure!) And no Buffalo Winter is ever going to keep me from getting where I need to go. Frankly, the only change I would make is if I could have gotten the Diesel version, so I could make my own Bio-Diesel. What can I say? I'm cheap.
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I [youtube.com]
Very interesting video from Fifth gear about just how much safer newer cars are.
My wife's family swears by their old volvo station wagon, and having been in a similar accident to what you describe in it, is built like a tank in terms of how much structural damage it takes in a minor impact (ie, how expensive the repairs will be).
But as you can see in this video, it's more an illusion of safety than a reality.
New cars crumple and destroy themselves so that *they* absorb the force instead of *you* absorbing it. It's not just a way to make things cheaper and force insurance companies to buy new cars more often.
Re:...especially if you get a break on your insura (Score:3, Interesting)
Flood is a specific exclusion on any standard homeowner's policy because it is a peril that insurers consider to have too high severity and too low frequency to appropriately model. In many flood-prone areas, insurers will refuse to underwrite a property unless the owner purchases separate flood insurance through the appropriate state agency, even if the policy contract language contains a flood exclusion. This is because insurers have been taken to court by insureds who claimed losses that were due to flood, and subsequently won (judges are very sympathetic to insureds), despite such exclusions. The problem with litigating flood losses is twofold: first, it increases the premiums to other insureds (since legal and settlement fees are part of loss adjustment expenses), and second, exposure to flood is not modeled in the rating plan. A very large flood like Katrina could literally bankrupt most small to mid-size insurers, unless there is some sort of reinsurance contract in place that covers such a contingency (but then why would the reinsurer pay if your contract excludes flood?).
Insurers actually have a duty to protect the rest of their insureds from having to bear the burden of those who file claims for losses specifically excluded in the contract. That is the extent of the insurer's reluctance to pay for losses, because if the ratemaking is done correctly, the developed rate should be sufficient to provide for future expected costs. Failure to set the rate sufficiently leads to insolvency, adverse selection, and intervention by the Departments of Insurance, which have the sole power to revoke the insurer's Certificate of Authority (their ability to write business in the state). An insurer does not (and should not) deny claims through a profit motive because this would distort the reserving trends, and risk many other regulatory issues that are frankly not worth the surplus that the insurer or reinsurer has, not to mention it is VERY bad from a competitive standpoint.
Re:traction control (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah go ahead and sideswipe the other car which may kill a whole family, because afterall we are Americans, and incredibly selfish and don't give a rats ass about anyone other than ourselves. And then we are mystified when the rest of the world hates us for being self centered arrogant jerks callous jerks with no ethics.
Kids are crazy these days. (Score:1, Interesting)
I think they should limit their speed to 60MPH. I'd have been one pissed teen back in the day but I would have gotten over it.
Whose going over 80MPH anyways? I live/work/commute in the DC area and I can not think of a place where I can do 80MPH, safely, aside from in the middle of the night. Areas like LA have even more congestion. Speeding tickets in VA are insane as well. I'd have to get a loan if they booked me to the full amount for doing 80MPH in a 65MPH zone.
Also, I'd gladly limit my car to 80MPH if there was an insurance discount.
I think it should be tiered:
60MPH for 18 and under
80MPH for 18-25
unlocked for over 25
Re:traction control (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:traction control (Score:3, Interesting)
The car I drive is about as far from an 4WD/AWD SUV -- a Mazda Miata. A tiny, lightweight, rear-wheel drive car. When November comes along, I switch out the summer tires with snow tires. And my car is more capable in the snow than just about every 4WD/AWD vehicle with all-season tires.
Case in point -- there is a moderately steep hill a few blocks from my house. Last winter, after a storm dropped 9 inches of snow, I was waiting at the bottom of the hill for 4WD Ford Explorer to either crest the hill or give up. After several attempts, all of which ended in him making it 1/3 - 1/2 of the way up the hill and sliding back down, he pulled off to the side of the road. I then started to drive my Miata up the hill, with the driver of the Explorer pointing and laughing at my car, probably telling his passenger 'what the hell is this guy thinking? My FOUR-wheel drive TRUCK can't get up this hill and he's trying to get up it in a freaking MIATA?!?!'
I wish I could have seen the look on his face when I easily made it to the top of the hill on my very first attempt. And after nearly every significant snowfall a similar situation occurs.
My point is that four-wheel drive does not automatically make your vehicle more capable of bad-weather driving. Too many people rely on it, and justify the poor fuel economy because 'you NEED four-wheel drive in this area because of its climate'. Even a vehicle which you would at first completely dismiss its poor-weather capabilities is far better at doing so (when properly set up) than a vehicle which people specifically purchase FOR its poor-weather 'capabilities'.
Intelligent Speed Adaptation here we come (Score:2, Interesting)