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.
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.
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
Re:Performance? In a Ford? (Score:4, Funny)
Just be careful, hitting 88 might result in you losing track of time. ALL of it.
Possible redundancy... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Possible redundancy... (Score:5, Funny)
should have had this when i was a kid (Score:5, Funny)
This will work as well (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
True (Score:5, Funny)
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:*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: (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
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: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.
Re:*sigh*... (Score:4, Informative)
my experience is that 99.99999999% of drivers on the freeway (as well as off, but that's irrelevant) are horrible, horrible drivers, putting me at a great risk of dying (...) the solution isn't to slow down, because you inevitably have another person behind you who's keeping five feet of distance from you. you get boxed in, and there's no fucking other choice. there is no solution to this problem, and you are deluding yourself if you think there is.
Uh... brake, slowly? So that the guy behind you will have time to back off and you'll get a gap between you and the guy in front. Most people that drive 5 feet up another car's ass is because they want to pass it, so because a guy is riding 5 feet up a truck's ass you're going to pass it AND the truck (since there's no space in betwee), probably on the same clearing as the other guy will want to pass the same truck? With the same guy still behind you? Let me try to explain to you what that looks like from his angle.
"Well, I was getting ready to pass that truck, I was up close and ready waiting for a gap in traffic, when this crazy fucker comes from behind at a huge speed and whizzes past. When I finally passed the truck myself, I get past only to find the fucker has slowed down again and is now blocking me. OMG WTF is he messing with me?"
And no, the rest of the drivers just see two crazy fucks looking to get past the trucks, you'll get no sympathy there. I think people like you suffer from some mild form of claustrophobia, believe it or not normal people that drive the "boxed-in" line do just fine, it's pretty much always those that take stupid risks to pass other cars that kill themselves. And maybe hit someone going the other way, but you can't help that much.
P.S. A few pointers: A heavily loaded truck brakes slower than a regular car. Truck drivers usually have many road miles and rarely do brainfart maneuvers. They have high taillights so not only the closest car but probably you and a few behind you all realize it's breaking and slow down. A breaking car will almost certainly stop before a car in front that's lost control and isn't breaking - it's conservation of momentum. Personally, I'd worry a lot more if I just passed a truck and had to break hard - that is actually the most dangerous place to be.
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.
Do you have kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
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:Even the most reliable (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have any kids, do you?
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: 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.
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:4, Informative)
Almost any 16 year old can drive in the states if they take a driver's ed course, get their permit, rack some hours up with another licensed driver, and then take a test.
Re: (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...
Re: (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).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
That's very different from Finland. Here you have to be 18 to get your license, although you can start taking the required courses earlier. (I think I took the actual test on my birthday actually.)
But it's like 20 hours of driving with a professional instructor here, and about as much of theory lessons. The driving lessons also include driving in the dark (nighttime lesson) and driving on slippery surfaces (winters here). Finally there's an actual independent test, which if failed leads to more mandatory le
nice ...theatre (Score:3)
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a really cheap/pointless marketing BS that isn't actually meant to really accomplish anything ?
80miles per hour is plenty fast to kill a lot of people... yup, awesome safety feature right there. Wait, let's go for double the safety, 40miles per hour...hrm, can still kill plenty of people ...and you're prolly endangering others by driving too slow in areas where you're supposed to drive fast.
so pretty much ...pointless/useless equivalent of "security theater" ?
But wait, let's look at it from the direction this system oppresses kids/curtails their "freedoms" instead. Yeah, stick it to the man! (mum) fucking nazis making you do the dishes and not let you drive over 80.
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?
Just as effective... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Is 80 even legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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?
...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:...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.
Re:...especially if you get a break on your insura (Score:4, Funny)
This is Slashdot. You can't post sensible educated posts like this! ;)
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.
Alternatively.. (Score:5, Funny)
Alternatively parents could try having a mature and trusting relationship with their teenage children...
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All this sounds nice, but there's another side. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:4, Funny)
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: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.
Re: (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.
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: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: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: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...
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.
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: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:4, Funny)
Go live in atlanta, dc, or pennsylvania for a while. Then type that with a straight face.
prolly easier to type with my hands and a keyboard, wherever i am
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: (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: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: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.
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: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, Funny)
Apparently, a Cheetah.
traction control (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to be popular to turn off traction control for parking-lot drag races, probably mainly for the visual/aural effect. On some cars where there was no way to switch it off, people would even install aftermarket firmware to let them do so (or on occasion there were undocumented button sequences to do so in the stock firmware); I seem to recall that being a big thing with BMWs for a while.
Probably not much of this frequently applies to a Ford Focus, though.
Re:traction control (Score:4, Informative)
Rocking your car out of the snow requires absence of traction control. If you can't turn it off, good job Ford!
Ford focuses are also notorious deathtraps. The cars crumble more than any other car in their market. Engine will drop at the slightest of frontal impacts (we're talking bumper dent equivalent).
Meanwhile, this is just an inch towards doing it for the "police" for your "Safety".
Re:traction control (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, no. Traction control will give you the maximum traction possible in snow, so you will not need to rock the car in the first place.
Re:traction control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:traction control (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. Obviously the post was suggesting that only his life was important. He couldn't possibly have meant that it may be safer for everyone to have a 10 MPH impact between to mobile objects than a 70 MPH impact with an immovable object.
But hey, don't stop your reductio ad absurdum trolling on my behalf.
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: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.
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.
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: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: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: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.
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.
Re:traction control (Score:4, Informative)
True, you don't need ABS if you can cadence brake. But it's a lot easier and safer to let the car do it far more rapidly and just slam the breaks on with ABS. Locking the wheels won't stop you quicker - especially in the wet, and it'll also stop you from being able to steer around that semi.
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: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.
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: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.
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.
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
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: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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:So you are stuck with the crap build in stereo (Score:4, Informative)
So you are stuck with the crap build in stereo also kids like to put in there own amps so the sound limit may not work that well then.
This would be used to limit their (mis)use of YOUR car. One would presume that if they are installing stereos and amps, its their car, and if its their car, they'll own the 'adult' keys for it anyway.
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: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: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.