Link below if you don't know what i'm talking about...

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/06/ford-introduces-limiting-mykey-for-worried-parents/


Discuss...

10/6/2008 12:47:57 PM

Worthless. Kids who really want to wild out in cars will find a way- and probably just ride with their friends, which is actually more dangerous. This is some shit made to appeal to parents who think they are going to get the most for their money when buying a car, but really how long will it be worth having? Smith buys a new Focus when his son is 17. Smith Jr. really only uses his dads car for what, a year or so before college or getting his own car? Ford would have been better off developing this into somethign that could be retrofitted to other cars.

10/6/2008 12:57:38 PM

not worthless at all. its a fucking brilliant idea if you ask me.

Limiting the top speed to 80, and limiting the stereo? sounds glorious. I think you have a gross mis-conception of teenagers.

1) Driving your own (or your parents) car trumps riding with friends (especially a new ford focus)
2) Most teens do not buy their first car. Mommy and Daddy do. So this could easily be useful for 3-4 years (15-19) depending on what the kid does after high school

hell it could be a huge incentive for college in and of itself, "go to college, get the car fully functional".

10/6/2008 1:11:13 PM

just dont have kids and you dont have to worry about any of this

10/6/2008 1:11:25 PM

great idea

10/6/2008 1:17:36 PM

great idea.

10/6/2008 1:19:15 PM

Quote :

"just dont have kids and you dont have to worry about any of this"

I'm totally down with that... Anything that says, "Caution, may reduce sperm count" is ay-okay in my book

But back on topic, I think this is a good idea as well. I just wished that a 80mph speed restriction could be applied to most cars *Cars that are classed as "sports" cars can have higher limits for tracking purposes... No need for a Dodge Caliber to go 135mph. (well, you could argue the SRT-4 should, but you guys should know understand where I am coming from here...)



[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 1:48 PM. Reason : /]

10/6/2008 1:40:39 PM

Well it's better that a consumer can do it than the government, I guess.

10/6/2008 3:10:55 PM

Quote :

"not worthless at all. its a fucking brilliant idea if you ask me. Limiting the top speed to 80, and limiting the stereo? sounds glorious. I think you have a gross mis-conception of teenagers. 1) Driving your own (or your parents) car trumps riding with friends (especially a new ford focus) 2) Most teens do not buy their first car. Mommy and Daddy do. So this could easily be useful for 3-4 years (15-19) depending on what the kid does after high school hell it could be a huge incentive for college in and of itself, "go to college, get the car fully functional"."

10/6/2008 3:57:56 PM

Parents will be asking for a repeated chime if 2 hands aren't on the wheel at all times.

10/6/2008 4:23:37 PM

Screw 80, top speed should be 55. Should also have an accelerometer that triggers a misfire if aggressive acceleration or braking is detected. Force the little bastards to drive like the elderly.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 5:23 PM. Reason : or how about a 3000 rpm rev limiter]

10/6/2008 5:11:19 PM

^I dont know about going that far. Allowing enough speed to safely maneuver out of bad situations is much safer than limiting to 55mph. And limiting acceleration while not braking gives the wrong message that gas is bad, brakes are good, which is not proper instruction.

The real reason I like this, is for the potential that I, as another driver, could have a device in MY car that will LOWER THE FUCKING VOLUME on the douchebag kid next to me when I pull up next to them at a stoplight. No, I do not want to listen to your 40 subwoofers rattling your trunk like a sardine can.

And yes I have subwoofers, and yes they are loud, but I turn my shit down in town and at stoplights.

10/6/2008 5:31:49 PM

Quote :

"gas is bad, brakes are good"

That is proper instruction for driving on public roads. Why do you think they put that instructor's brake pedal in drivers ed cars but not an instructor's gas pedal? It's because there's virtually no situation in which an inexperienced driver is better off to "accelerate out of an accident".

There's no reason a teenager needs to get to 60mph any quicker than 14 seconds. Hell, no one got to 60mph any quicker than that in the late 1970's anyway.

10/6/2008 6:05:34 PM

^That I have to disagree. There are times when not being able to merge into tight traffic that's already going 65-75mph because your car just takes way too long to get up to speed is hazardous, especially on cloverleaf turnpikes where the merging lane for one on ramp is the same lane for those trying to get off (the us-1 I-440 exits are one that I can think off that are a bitch when you got someone in an old 80's civic that stops on the ramp because he knows he can't accelerate fast enough in that short distance to merge on, even though I guess they could just go around the cloverleaf ) Do they need to go 0-60 faster than 6 seconds? no. But 14 seconds is ridiculous. I'd say anywhere from 8-10 seconds is reasonable.

Today's cars are faster and people drive them much faster. It's just one of those things where it's safer to keep up than to actually be slower...

However, other than what I've said about the acceleration, I do agree that brakes are more important than speeding up. ESPECIALLY for young/inexperienced drivers, it's safer to slow your speed down to hopefully avoid an accident rather than speed up. Besides, I'm sure it's normal instinct that when shit's about to happen, more people will go for the brakes rather than the accelerator...

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 7:20 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2008 7:15:55 PM

i have 105 hp and have never had a problem merging with traffic because i couldnt get to speed quickly enough

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 7:29 PM. Reason : 

10/6/2008 7:28:57 PM

Quote :

"Screw 80, top speed should be 55. Should also have an accelerometer that triggers a misfire if aggressive acceleration or braking is detected. Force the little bastards to drive like the elderly."

That's fucking retarded considering that the speed limit is at least 70mph (Maybe 75mph) on parts of 40 in NC. Driving 55mph in a 70mph zone is downright dangerous.

Triggering a misfire sounds bad for the engine too. I think you might mean utilizing a "spark cut" or "fuel cut" and even that is stupid considering that pretty much all cars have drive by wire throttles now. You could simply make it so that the throttle will only open so far no matter how much the gas pedal is depressed.

Quote :

"But back on topic, I think this is a good idea as well. I just wished that a 80mph speed restriction could be applied to most cars *Cars that are classed as "sports" cars can have higher limits for tracking purposes... No need for a Dodge Caliber to go 135mph. (well, you could argue the SRT-4 should, but you guys should know understand where I am coming from here...)"

Are you seriously saying that you think all cars should have speed limiters set at 80mph? Fuck that.

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 7:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 7:46:39 PM

haha people get so emotional when it comes to driving.

10/6/2008 8:07:08 PM

this is a good idea until some little emo suicidal jackass runs into you headon with his hair on fire on the limiter at 80 mph

10/6/2008 9:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously saying that you think all cars should have speed limiters set at 80mph? Fuck that."

Are you serious saying that you think all cars need to go faster than 80mph? Fuck that.


Right back at ya.

Quote :

"this is a good idea until some little emo suicidal jackass runs into you headon with his hair on fire on the limiter at 80 mph"

hahahaha

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 9:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2008 9:37:54 PM

10/6/2008 9:39:30 PM

this is retarded...

If parents where just better parents then this wouldn't be an issue. This is just like the drinking age, as soon as the kid is allowed to use the car fully they are just going to take full advantage. Learning how to control yourself with a car is part of the learning process, besides we aren't talking about a mustang or a corvette, its a fucking focus...punish enough

10/7/2008 8:29:21 AM

Agreed.

10/7/2008 8:31:58 AM

i can think of a whole list of entertaining/dangerous things i can do with a top speed of 30mph and no radio. the point is if kids want to get crazy in the car, they're going to do it no matter what.

10/7/2008 2:46:15 PM

ding ding ding

10/7/2008 2:52:47 PM

yeah i agree... but i would like my car to have a vallet mode..

(if it was a fast car) so its not as enticing.....


yes if one's intent is to be an idiot they can still do it... but

a fuckus doesn't make we want to drive as retarded as an 03 cobra...

10/7/2008 3:00:22 PM

^ The vallet mode is a great idea...

Quote :

"i can think of a whole list of entertaining/dangerous things i can do with a top speed of 30mph and no radio. the point is if kids want to get crazy in the car, they're going to do it no matter what."

True, however, I think if you take away the most likely causes (speeding, etc), it will hopefully decline the number of accidents/deaths for teenagers. Will it stop all of them? No. If they are blatently stupid enough to pull dangerous stunts on purpose, then so be it. I'd like to think of this as "training wheels" for beginning drivers... Hell, there are some people who don't start driving till after highschool or even later, so just because they are older when they start driving still doesn't take away the fact that they are inexperienced and may required safeguards.

Either way, I don't have to worry about that ^_^

10/7/2008 3:21:14 PM

When you put your kid on a bike with training wheels, do you just give them a push down the street and go back inside to watch TV? The safest thing is parental supervision, not a stupid speed and volume limiter in a car. This is why we have graduated license programs now instead of big brother programs on every vehicle driven by a teen, because they should be supervised till they are ready and then cut loose to fly or fry. I knew people killed in car wrecks soon after getting their license, they were on 2 lane roads going under 80, ran off the side, overcorrected and rolled. Which by the way is the leading type of fatal teenage car accident, and this new system wouldnt do a thing to address that. Not that it needs to be addressed, except maybe in the form of better drivers ed training.

Modern cars are already speed limited at a safe level. Limiting them to 80 for drivers at a high likelihood for reckless behavior will create a new mark to measure performance by- how fast will it get to the limiter? Perhaps how long can I keep it on the limiter? How high can I jump this hill on the limiter? This will PROMOTE reckless driving in the kids who really are prone to it already. In the others, it will limit their safety on the highway. And to those who will say "when do you really need to go faster than 80?" please shut the fuck up. Think about that the next time you are on 40 at the Wade Ave split and that 18 wheeler switches whos blind spot you are in puts his blinker on and starts to switch lanes. Youll floor it and save your life while the poor kids who you Ford thinks they are saving via technology end up in a ball of flaming wreckage.

What else will they come up with? Etch a sketch side glass for minivans? Anti-egging wax? Runflats on a Focus? Lets just go ahead and build the cars that drive themselves like on Demolition Man. And the boxes that fine us for swearing. Hand over your guns, turn in your keys, give us your souls America. Yay.

10/7/2008 3:51:39 PM

i don't doubt that it might save some lives, but it's hardly going to be any sort of real solution. i don't want the price of my cars being jacked up just because some parents would rather rely on technology to raise their kids. parents need to do the educating and imposing limits. the kids that don't follow good parenting certainly aren't going to be saved by a speed limiter and cutting the radio volume down. they're still going to not pay attention, drive recklessly, or whatever. this should eliminate some of the very extreme cases that make the 5:00 news, but that's a VERY small percentage. we've already got graduated licensing, grade requirements, etc... shit is going to far. what happens when the government catches wind of this grand new technology? will it still be such a good idea when it's federally mandated for all vehicles or all drivers age 16-18? if we're going to rely on other people to raise our kids, lets put this money and effort into better driver's ed programs. that's infinitely more useful than just imposing these other limitations.

i don't know, i guess i just can't understand how a country that so courageously fought for it's independence, forged a frontier, etc. has turned into such a bunch of pansies that would rather regulate everything to death in the name of safety but at the cost of freedoms. some things in life are just dangerous. driving can be one of those things. raising kids is hard, but you have to let them go and do their thing at a few major points in life. they're going to screw up, sometimes in a major life taking way. what's next, we start engineering trees so 10 year olds quit falling out of them? sometimes i wonder how the human race has survived this long without all this nonsense.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ^EXACTLY... should have just saved my time typing my post]

10/7/2008 4:11:09 PM

Here's my prediction:

Most US car makers will start offering "economy" modes for their cars, adjusting the computer to reduce gas consumption and performance. (IE let it run lean, shift earlier, etc) You can bet they're looking for roundabout ways to get the EPA numbers up without actually spending any money on development.

10/7/2008 4:13:58 PM

yeah, right... i promise big oil will ever let that happen, at least to an extent where it would make any real difference. you do realize that the federal government, auto makers, and the oil companies are all in bed together, right? besides, you already have the ability to do anything that the manufacturer would do by simply adjusting your driving habits.

10/7/2008 4:20:53 PM

I'll rebutal to that for the sake of conversing (no hard feelings I hope... Kind of like being devil's advocate) So don't think I'm upset or yelling or anything

Quote :

"When you put your kid on a bike with training wheels, do you just give them a push down the street and go back inside to watch TV? The safest thing is parental supervision, not a stupid speed and volume limiter in a car. This is why we have graduated license programs now instead of big brother programs on every vehicle driven by a teen, because they should be supervised till they are ready and then cut loose to fly or fry."

I agree they should be supervised till they are ready. It's a parent's job to teach responsibility to children, so I agree. However, not everyone is responsible now are they? So yes, sadly sometimes mandated things like speed limiters and volume limiters are put in place to save us from ourselves (or even others who are too stupid/ignorant/irresponsible). I can agree that some of the laws/regulations placed in a general are stupid (such as carding people for purchasing compressed air... ), however, that discussion is off topic.

Quote :

"Modern cars are already speed limited at a safe level. Limiting them to 80 for drivers at a high likelihood for reckless behavior will create a new mark to measure performance by- how fast will it get to the limiter? Perhaps how long can I keep it on the limiter? How high can I jump this hill on the limiter? "

People do this already. Trying to get to anywhere from the 105mph to 115mph speed limiter. As speed increases, the reaction time required to save yourself from an "incident" increases exponentially. So even if they try to attempt stupid shit at, lets say 80mph, it's still safer than at a higher governer. Denying that is ignorant.

Quote :

"This will PROMOTE reckless driving in the kids who really are prone to it already. In the others, it will limit their safety on the highway. "

Oh really? If they are already prone to it, then there is no reason to be on the road to begin with, regardless of the vehicle or it's capabilities. The parents need to step up and hold off on letting their child get the liscense. You've got to realize that you can't control everyone though. At some point people will still go off and do their own thing. It's not right, but that's reality. You can't save the world and it's sad that some people will continue to endager themselves and others as a result of their recklessness. But those that try to reach an 80mph limiter is still safer than someone trying to reach 3 digits, as I've mentioned already.

Quote :

"And to those who will say "when do you really need to go faster than 80?" please shut the fuck up. Think about that the next time you are on 40 at the Wade Ave split and that 18 wheeler switches whos blind spot you are in puts his blinker on and starts to switch lanes. Youll floor it and save your life while the poor kids who you Ford thinks they are saving via technology end up in a ball of flaming wreckage. "

Well techincally, you shouldn't have to go faster than 80mph to pull away from the trucker, because well, the trucker shouldn't be speeding faster than 80 mph. Therefore he shouldn't even catch up to you in that situation... This is more of an acceleration than a top speed issue... You can't be concerned about every nit-picky situation. Shit will always happen. That's a part of life. According to your suggestion, then everyone should have at least a 3.6L making 300 hp to "pull" them out of any awkward situation... Don't even get me started with the potential hazards concerning vehicles with more power...

Quote :

"What else will they come up with? Etch a sketch side glass for minivans? Anti-egging wax? Runflats on a Focus? Lets just go ahead and build the cars that drive themselves like on Demolition Man. And the boxes that fine us for swearing. Hand over your guns, turn in your keys, give us your souls America. Yay. "

lolz aren't you witty

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2008 4:31:02 PM

you sir, are a bona fide idiot.

10/7/2008 4:42:30 PM

Aww damnit. You gave up on me. I thought we could discuss this...






haha. Either that means you don't know how to respond or you just ain't as witty as I thought...
j/k holmes...

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2008 4:53:51 PM

it's easy to play devil's advocate, but you haven't really provided any support for your argument. hell, half of what you posted was in agreement with our standpoint.

instead of simply arguing for the sake of arguing, explain how this is going to drastically cut the statistics. give us some hard numbers of how many lives this is estimated to save, or by what percentage fatal accidents in the target group will be reduced. where's the data that says kids who drive below 80mph and only have the radio at half volume are never or rarely involved in fatal accidents? don't waste much time looking, because there is none.

why should i as a consumer be forced to pay for this technology that doesn't benefit the majority and is STANDARD equipment? out of the very small number of kids this will be effective for, how many do you think will secretly bypass the system? i might could deal with or even support this if it was optional.

come on, live in the real world for a minute. all of this sounds fantastic on the surface, but in reality it's nothing more than a feel good marketing campaign that will eventually turn into just another useless burden in a world of ever increasing rules and regulations.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2008 4:56:30 PM

touche!

I need to do more research, but I'm sure the basic principle of what I said stands. yes, I do agree to some of the things you've said because I'm not that retarded to disagree just for the hell of disagreeing. I'm trying to keep it realisitic with those respects.

I'll retort later. I just got more work stacked on my desk >_< and classes tonight on top of it.

10/7/2008 5:01:00 PM

Quote :

"yeah, right... i promise big oil will ever let that happen, at least to an extent where it would make any real difference. you do realize that the federal government, auto makers, and the oil companies are all in bed together, right? besides, you already have the ability to do anything that the manufacturer would do by simply adjusting your driving habits."

Exactly, an "economy mode" would be a relatively pointless gimmick, just like this My Key system. I'm saying we should expect lots more gimmicks in the coming years as automakers resist real change yet become increasingly desperate to still sell trucks.

10/7/2008 5:14:56 PM

^^yeah, i think we have common ground on the principle of it. it's just the actual implementation that i'm personally opposed to. in a perfect world where this would always work exactly as described and corporations/government wouldn't use it as a gateway to other things, i think such a thing would be great. we don't live in that world though.

^ah. agreed.

10/7/2008 5:21:10 PM

^ & ^^

I agree. Thinking about it more, I think this idea parallels that of the on-board Breathalyzer.

Is the my key a good idea? yea, I think it is. Do I honestly care if it makes it onto the market? No. Do I think it'll make that much of an impact? Probably not.

Now time for class >_< I will say though that the breakdown on teenage fatalities from vehicular altercations are:

~33%- Drinking and Driving
~33%- Excessive speeding
~33%- other

Now as far as excessive speeding, "My Key" won't help restrict anyone from doing 75mph in a 35mph zone...

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2008 6:08:55 PM

i fail to see how offering an option to consumers is a bad idea just because a few of you do not think you would need it for your kids. this is exactly the opposite of government intervention, its letting parents and the free market decide. this is what we need more of, not less of. I have to believe that ford has a lot of market research behind an innovation like this, i would bet that a lot of parents would like something like this.

and from a safety standpoint: sure this may not make a huge dent in a lot of statistics and may not be a huge jump in reducing teenage driver accidents, but how the hell would it hurt? any minimal gains are good. our cars are safe today because of the sum of many small innovations. don't want to pay for something like this? then don't, no one is forcing you to.

a couple of you are asking one poster to defend why this is a good idea, but why the hell is this bad? some people don't like to pay the additional cost of airbags or seat belts, so is it bad that they offer them? I think I could probably be ok with only one mirror and not three, is offering three mirrors bad?

10/7/2008 6:42:39 PM

^you need to read. you obviously missed that this is not optional, it's standard equipment.

10/7/2008 6:49:52 PM

^^ it's great advertising for the brain numb of the world, just a gimmick though

10/7/2008 6:59:27 PM

^^i got from what I've read that it was standard and at no additional cost because the technology was already built into the car.

10/7/2008 8:16:17 PM

^Exactly. It's not going to cost you any more. And lets be REAL HONEST HERE. Neither BBR or optmusprimer would ever buy a NEW FORD FOCUS anyway.

You guys are both making retarded strawman and anecdotal arguments.

You are making the exact same metaphorical arguments as "I don't wear a seatbelt because this guy I know died in an accident because he was wearing one". It's also pretty blatantly obvious neither of you either have kids of driving age, or have any recollection of being that age (or maybe you were just weird at 16-18 years old).

Quote :

"I knew people killed in car wrecks soon after getting their license, they were on 2 lane roads going under 80, ran off the side, overcorrected and rolled. Which by the way is the leading type of fatal teenage car accident, and this new system wouldnt do a thing to address that."

What you don't know is if they were actually PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD at the time. I would bet anything they were either: Talking to friends in the car, listening to or messing with the radio, on a cell phone, or some combination of the three.

A late 1970s Indiana University study of "Precrash factors involved in traffic accidents" identified driver inattention as the leading cause of automobile accidents. On a recent CNN "Talkback Live" program that dealt with driver distraction, (transcript is here) Mark Edwards, Director of Traffic Safety at the American Automobile Association stated, "The research tells us that somewhere between 25-50 percent of all motor vehicle crashes in this country really have driver distraction as their root cause."

The "My Key" device limits the stereo volume, which, other than having friends in the car, is the single most CONTROLLABLE distraction you can affect:



The "My Key" device chimes for having seatbelts fastened. Only 39% of teenagers killed in vehicles have their seatbelts on. 33% for males, 50% for females. So if it's annoying, GOOD. Maybe that chime will save a life. And the rates DROP with age, with 20-24 year olds being around 30% belt usage in fatal accidents.

http://downloads.nsc.org/pdf/teenseatbeltuse.pdf

So I would call that a HUGE potential. Annoyances like this have been PROVEN to raise seatbelt usage. http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec03/seatbelt.html showed REAL increases of 5%, with 80% of surveyed respondants saying it was both beneficial to them, and acceptable.

The third thing it does is to limit speed to 80mph.

It's COMMON FUCKING SENSE that there is nowhere in the US where going over 80mph is prudent or necessary.

Quote :

"And to those who will say "when do you really need to go faster than 80?" please shut the fuck up. Think about that the next time you are on 40 at the Wade Ave split and that 18 wheeler switches whos blind spot you are in puts his blinker on and starts to switch lanes. Youll floor it and save your life while the poor kids who you Ford thinks they are saving via technology end up in a ball of flaming wreckage. "

Way to throw out a completely arbitrary and unbacked situation. The appropriate response would be to BRAKE and move away from the truck in a controlled manner. Better to get clipped at the tail of 18 wheeler than in front, and sure as hell better to get in a fender bender than to end up getting boxed and dragged down the highway for hundreds of feet or more.

Damn near every study ever done on excessive speeding has shown that the younger the driver, the more likely they are to speed excessively, and wreck and injure or kill themselves because they DONT KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY HANDLE THE CAR. The situation you posited assumes the driver has had YEARS of experience to know how to properly escape from the situation. Something a 16 year old will not be able to do.

http://www.monash.edu/muarc/reports/muarc159.html another study showing the correlation of speeding to young drivers. It may not prevent a kid from going 75 in a 35, but it will prevent them from going 110 in a 35, or from reaching fatal speeds in a variety of situations. Any wreck at 80mph will be less severe than one over 80mph.

Seriously, I respect the hell out of both of you guys in the car domain, but you are making absolutely ignorant, selfish and arbitrary aguments against these SIMPLE, FREE enhancements that will save lives.

[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 9:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2008 9:06:16 PM

their point isn't that it's going to affect them directly because it's in a ford focus, but because it will eventually spread to other makes/models and sooner or later most things could possibly have it by default

basically what he said here

Quote :

"yeah, i think we have common ground on the principle of it. it's just the actual implementation that i'm personally opposed to. in a perfect world where this would always work exactly as described and corporations/government wouldn't use it as a gateway to other things, i think such a thing would be great. we don't live in that world though. "

10/7/2008 9:18:33 PM

maybe you dont realize that almost every ford vehicle has had the chime for the last ten years or so.

or that EVERY production car in the US has had speed governors for over a decade.

or that many many makes of cars have had auto-matic volume controls on stereos for years.

This is simply the same technologies put into a user-customizable form. There's nothing nefarious about it other than it being a good advertising opportunity and saving some lives. How is it bad to have these technologies in all cars where the DRIVER gets to make the choice of using it or not?

Don't forget all of these features can be altered or TURNED OFF. Which is more control than most vehicles give you today.

10/7/2008 9:32:56 PM

Quote :

"Exactly. It's not going to cost you any more. And lets be REAL HONEST HERE. Neither BBR or optmusprimer would ever buy a NEW FORD FOCUS anyway."

i hope you're not naive enough to think there are no additional costs associated with this. it also has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not i would buy a ford focus. the article in question clearly states it will eventually be extended to the entire line of ford vehicles. do you think other manufacturers won't follow along in their footsteps?

Quote :

"It's also pretty blatantly obvious neither of you either have kids of driving age, or have any recollection of being that age (or maybe you were just weird at 16-18 years old)."

and you have how many kids...? i can assure you that i was EXACTLY the kid this shit is aimed at controlling, as were a large chunk of my friends. i'm telling you it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. hell, my first car would barely go 85-90mph and it didn't have a stereo. i still did things that possibly defied the laws of physics. i feel like you're the one that's a little out of touch with the reality of the teenage world. maybe you've just always been a responsible driver and were a good kid, i don't know?

Quote :

"Damn near every study ever done on excessive speeding has shown that the younger the driver, the more likely they are to speed excessively, and wreck and injure or kill themselves because they DONT KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY HANDLE THE CAR. The situation you posited assumes the driver has had YEARS of experience to know how to properly escape from the situation. Something a 16 year old will not be able to do."

exactly. knowing that, if we're going to address the problem, it should be at the level of driver education. there should be increased instruction, more intense practice, a tougher licensing tests. impose tougher penalties for young drivers who break the law. any of those things would be a much more reasonable action. simply imposing more vehicle controls is NOT the answer and is pissing in the wind for the most part.

Quote :

"Seriously, I respect the hell out of both of you guys in the car domain, but you are making absolutely ignorant, selfish and arbitrary aguments against these SIMPLE, FREE enhancements that will save lives"

i'm not sure what's so complicated to understand here. i like the idea of it, and would even be fine with it being optional. what i'm NOT okay with is it being standard equipment as well as the potential for the government to abuse the technology. i don't see how that is ignorant or selfish at all. i simply expect to have as much freedom of control over my own life and my family's life as possible. wtf is wrong with that? it's not infringing on anyone else's rights. i'm not saying it's okay for teenagers to drive like jackasses.

honestly, it really surprises me for you to say that knowing just how intimate i am with the dangers of the road. obviously i didn't lose my life, but i've paid a significant price for someone else's error in judgement and lack of attention. if there is anyone on this board that would be strongly in favor of requiring the technology to reduce driving mistakes, it would be me. however, i value personal freedoms a lot more than my fears or regrets of injury/death.

since you mentioned seatbelts, why should they be federally mandated? the same goes for airbags or motorcycle helmets. tpms's could be used as an example also. what was once offered as a "safety" feature like this has now become required by law. people that don't take advantage of these things are taking substantial risks, but it should be their choice to take those risks. that's what my fear is of this technology. it's not up to car manufacturers or the government to protect people from themselves or to raise people's kids. even if it was up to them, there are far better ways to address the problems than gadgets and/or more laws.

10/7/2008 11:12:59 PM

you don't think seat belts should be required by law?

10/7/2008 11:20:20 PM

All I got to say about the seatbelt thing is:

If you die in an accident where a seat belt could have saved your life, I say they burn your body and the car altogether on the spot. No one should have to clean your shit up after because you failed to take all possible options ensuring your safety. I sure as hell would leave that person's body to rot.



[Edited on October 7, 2008 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2008 11:58:10 PM

^^no. i don't think it's very smart to not wear one, but i believe things like that should ultimately be a personal decision. at the most, the government should educate the public on the risk and danger of not wearing one.

^wat? in that case, lets stop providing any medical services to people that speed also. or people that accidently run a red light and hit someone. or people that do anything that could possibly injure themselves. hell, lets just all build padded rooms in our houses and never leave!

10/8/2008 1:09:22 AM

Quote :

"since you mentioned seatbelts, why should they be federally mandated? the same goes for airbags or motorcycle helmets. tpms's could be used as an example also. what was once offered as a "safety" feature like this has now become required by law. people that don't take advantage of these things are taking substantial risks, but it should be their choice to take those risks. that's what my fear is of this technology. it's not up to car manufacturers or the government to protect people from themselves or to raise people's kids. even if it was up to them, there are far better ways to address the problems than gadgets and/or more laws."

Helmets are not federally mandated. I agree with you that none of the things you mention should be federally mandated, they are all state's rights.

However, one of the core responsibilities of government is to promote the general welfare. And safety devices do that. And you know what, there ARE far better ways for people to protect themselves and their children, but every little bit that ANYONE in society can do helps. Ever hear that is takes a village to raise a child? Parents are not gods, they cannot, nor cannot be expected to reign over every choice and action their children make.

Quote :

"and you have how many kids...? i can assure you that i was EXACTLY the kid this shit is aimed at controlling, as were a large chunk of my friends. i'm telling you it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. hell, my first car would barely go 85-90mph and it didn't have a stereo. i still did things that possibly defied the laws of physics. i feel like you're the one that's a little out of touch with the reality of the teenage world. maybe you've just always been a responsible driver and were a good kid, i don't know?"

Fortunately for all of us, you aren't the norm. Did you even bother reading the links I pointed you to? Studies have shown, over the course of decades of research, that these devices DO change behavior, and DO save lives. Just because you were too ignorant as a teenager to consider the safety of yourself and everyone around you, doesn't mean we should condemn everyone to the same repeated actions.

Quote :

"i hope you're not naive enough to think there are no additional costs associated with this. it also has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not i would buy a ford focus. the article in question clearly states it will eventually be extended to the entire line of ford vehicles. do you think other manufacturers won't follow along in their footsteps?"

Guess what? No one is forcing you to buy a Ford. You are being absolutely retarded here. And guess what? No one is forcing you to buy any other manufacturers car that carries similar technology. It's called the free market. You are not a dictator. You can whine and bitch and moan about it all you want, but the only choice you get to make is to not buy one, and lobby for getting it as optional equipment.

I could make the same argument for every car with more than 100hp, or any vehicle with more than 4 cylinders. Why should I have to pay extra for horsepower and torque that I don't want? Why shouldn't it be optional? The market dictates the options. If every manufacturer picks up on this and you feel so opposed to it, guess what? You have the freedom to go MAKE YOUR OWN CAR. Then you can sell it to the millions of imaginary people who also care so much about not keeping themselves and their kids a tiny bit more safe for a few extra dollars.

But maybe you also missed the fact that ALL OF THIS TECHNOLOGY ALREADY EXISTS ON MOST AUTOMOBILES. Yet I haven't heard you bitching about it until now.

10/8/2008 3:30:26 AM