Ford To Introduce Restrictive Car Keys For Parents

thesandbender writes "Ford is set to release a management system that will restrict certain aspects of a car's performance based on which key is in the ignition. The speed is limited to 80, you can't turn off traction control, and you can't turn the stereo up to eleven. It's targeted at parents of teenagers and seems like a generally good idea, especially if you get a break on your insurance." The keys will be introduced with the 2010 Focus coupe and will quickly spread to Ford's entire lineup.

Performance? In a Ford?

Do Fords even go up to 80?

Re:Performance? In a Ford?

I'm betting the stock stereo on any ford doesn't go up to a (Spinal Tap style) 11 either.

should have had this when i was a kid

would have saved me the humiliation of "racing" my parents' taurus

Just as effective...

Would be a car that logged exactly where it went and at what speed, automatically uploading it to a PC in your house. I don't think kids would be anywhere near as reckless knowing that their parents would see exactly how they'd been driving.

Is 80 even legal?

Is 80 MPH legal anywhere in the USA?

Re:Is 80 even legal?

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...

GM already did that

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?

Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side.

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.

You are aware that a lot, if not most, newer commercial vehicles (cargo vans, straight trucks) have speed limiters on them that cut out somewhere between 66-80mph. As someone who drives them every day I couldn't tell you once that it's ever been an issue other than "I wish I was going faster because then I'd get there sooner."

Don't like that one? There are plenty of cars that have top end limiters, I believe there one of the old Chevys cut out at 115 or so. How many people do you think have been complaining about that one?

I rarely drive the speed limit in anything but rush hour traffic, but the idea that not being able to go faster than 80 is endangering anybodies life, or especially more people than it's protecting is complete bullshit. It's right up there with people who don't wear seatbelts because they know a guy who knows a guy who was killed by one, you can come up with any harebrained scenario to justify it (I've already seen "racing off a collapsing bridge") but you're just grasping at straws.

Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side.

Apparently, a Cheetah.

Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side.

You mean speed limits?

Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side.

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.

Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side.

That's just silly. Let's apply that logic to something (anything!) else:

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.

Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car.

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...

Re:exactly, GOV DRM backdoored into your car.

I'm sorry, but most teenagers can barely drive in the first place, let alone when panicked during an emergency.

Re:ban everything

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:*sigh*...

"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:*sigh*...

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*...

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.

Do you have kids?

Much, perhaps most, dangerous driving by kids is caused by trying to show off to their mates. Limit the speed and power and the vehicle to its baic transport function. No fun trying to do a burn out in a car that refuses to do it.

Re:Do you have kids?

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: total trust or nothing

You seem to live in a boolean universe. Parents sort of trust their kids to drive responsibly, but know it will vary with who else is in the car. It makes sense to loan a car that they cannot show off in, nor be *encouraged* to drive faster than they have competence. Also, distraction in the car is a problem is well. Slower means more time to react to a threat.

Stats show that males (prob females too these days) stabilize at safe driving only when over 25. Stupid to only allow them to borrow the car when that old. They need the socialization way before then. Slower accidents may cause injury, but are no where near as likely to be fatal.

As for needing to drive over 80. Yup, it is remotely possible that that might happen. They also would need a bottle of whiskey in the car to act as medicinal alcohol in case of accidents. Yeah, right.

Re: total trust or nothing

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:So you are stuck with the crap build in stereo

Apparently, spelling and grammar help readers understand what others are writing.

Re:Possible redundancy...

at that speed you could have just gone back in time to avoid the ticket in the first place