2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid: MyKey

The stereo thing is fine, but the max speed is a horrible idea. Sometimes the safest way out of a situation is to speed. It's debatable whether it's overall safer this way, but it strikes me as similar to limiting braking force because they might get whiplash.

Granted, my first car, a 4cyl Ford Ranger essentially had this feature due to innate lack of power, but I hate the idea of intentionally hobbling a car this way.

Teens become safer drivers through something you don't add to the car or buy in a store: experience. Perhaps we need a little more simple additions to driving preparation: parental involvement. I guess some folks wants to buy a solution rather to work at it the old fashioned way. Some of the most dangerous situations I've been in haven't involved high speeds, rather drunk drivers, inclement weather and unknown roads. Perhaps a bit less TV and a bit more parental involvement would help.

While I agree with others here that sometimes the accelerator is the best tool to avoid an accident, I can not think of a scenario where a teen driver on public roads with speed limits of 55 or 65 mph would actually need to go 80. Especially when you consider that the fusion hybrid ( as good as it is) isn't exactly a rocket hip above 60 mph anyway.
I see this as a good feature.

seems useless. any 16 year old who gets to drive a $30k car....can a) afford to crash it and b) probably doesnt want a fusion.

Otherwise, speed away in your 1995 civic that you more realistically are going to get from your parents. I wouldnt gamble more than $3000 on a 16 year old drivers car.

+1 cjasis

To say you would ever need to exceed 80 mph for "safety" in nonsense. If you need to go that fast to pass a car then either the car was going too fast to be passed or you chose to small a gap.

Even the 65 mph speed limit is useful if your kids are only borrowing the car to go somewhere in town.

my main issue with this technology is that is takes away the opportunity for a young person to display responsible behavior. They can only become responsible in a situation where they create their own barriers. This simply increases the degree to which young adults are infantilized and fail to become true adults.

Thanks to the site randomly logging me out and losing my original post...

I may be a techno-geek, but technology is not a replacement for human experience or proper parenting. I had the opportunity to go through driving school right after graduating from high school and was disciplined to be a good, alert driver. Recently, I was able to pick up driving a stick with the help and tutoring of a very gracious friend.

The only problem is that poor driving skills and habits found in many adult drivers today help propagate the same poor driving to newer generations. Even in those cases, technology cannot help. All of the tech nannies and features (blind spot monitoring, lane departure warning) are great for the times that alert drivers lose focus; but they are becoming crutches and people depend on them so much that they forget that they still need to use their eyes and ears.

All the parental involvement, speeches, and hugs won't stop a teen who wants to have some fun in Mommy and Daddies car. I did a couple of moderately stupid things when I first got my license to "impress" my friends, and I was pretty tame only because I loved my car and didn't want to wreck it, but many teens drive beaters and don't care.

I think that this is a neat idea, especially the limits for the stereo.

"While I agree with others here that sometimes the accelerator is the best tool to avoid an accident, I can not think of a scenario where a teen driver on public roads with speed limits of 55 or 65 mph would actually need to go 80. "

There are some roads where 75 is the limit. In CA there are freeways with a 70 limit and going that slow will get you run over. You become an obstacle at 70 and then everybody is jockeying around you. Also, I have found at times when encountering a slower moving drunk/impaired driver you can either slow down or do everything in your power to get by the idiot. I'm a bigger fan of getting beyond the fool. To each his own.

Speed is not the danger here. Inexperience is. I know plenty of people who have been in crashes at 1-5 MPH and I know 2 who have rolled SUVs on off-ramps. They weren't going 65 or 75. Heck the Ford Exploders were rolling at normal freeway speeds.

FWIW, manual transmissions are a great way to teach young drivers about paying attention while driving. They must be in tune with the car and always paying attention to engine sounds, torque, etc.

And the stereo volume limiter, channel blocking and on/off based on seatbelt use is idiotic. Really, people have 16 year olds that they block from specific channels? Is this Footloose? What the hell, 16 year olds who have parents that can afford brand new Fords are not likely to be living in a cable-free, internet-free world where "objectionable" content is hard to find.

Further, the device's concept is flawed at its core as any teen with an ounce of sense will be able to find a way to reflash the system using the Internet and a few easy-to-buy tools/programs.

Though sometimes accelerating can be a safe option, I don't think that this is that frequent, nor is it the only safe option either. For example, if you are in the right lane and you see a slower vehicle in front, one may think that accelerating to fill a gap in the left lane is a safe option... but another equally safe option is to slow down, wait until the traffic thins itself in the left lane and then pass the slow vehicle. It is a safe option, maybe even safer than accelerating, but aggressive drivers don't think about it, because slowing down, ever, is not an option.

Limiting the speed can then be useful by forcing young drivers to accept the idea of slowing down when judging what to do about a potentially dangerous situation. Then again, really aggressive young drivers may ignore it and choose dangerous options instead... quite frankly, if they do that, they deserve what's coming to then. Darwin Awards time!

Joking aside, since speed is lower, they are less likely to be involved in a fatal accident because their car will have less kinetic energy to disperse in case of an accident. So even if this doesn't prevent accidents, at least it may help them survive the accident and learn a valuable (if costly) lesson.

That said, I would prefer not to limit the car to my child if I had one, at least at first. Then, if I knew that this child drove in a dangerous manner, then I'd apply those restrictions as punishment and as a way to force them to drive more sensibly.

Then again, no matter the limits you put on the car, it can't solve every problem. Even if you put a limit of 65 mph, that may be OK on the highway, but if the guy drives at 65 mph in urban centers, then that is still dangerously fast.

@kchoz - the difference in energy from a 4500 Explorer hitting another car head on at 65 v. 80 is so minimal that the end result will likely be the same: catastrophic.

And yeah, if your kid is a dangerous driver, limiting his top speed isn't addressing the real problem: the driver.

I think its a great idea, maybe because I've only been driving for ten years I still remember a lot of the dumb moves I made when I felt immortal behind the wheel. actually it's a wonder I'm still alive today to talk about it.

Experience is generally a lesson not soon forgotten but I'm pretty sure the idea here is to make sure kids live long enough to realize the error of their ways.

just paving the way for cars that drive themselves.

the way humans are evolving (de evolving), maybe thats not such a bad thing.

All I know is I could have a lot of fun messing with my wife this way ;)

While I am on record as supporting the speed limit feature over on yesterday's Straightline thread about this. I would note that "too fast" is relative.

It seems that I read about 2-3 accidents where teenagers are killed every year, usually multiple teens since they feed each others stupidity. But they are also mostly on secondary roads and at night where 50mph is often too fast.

So really, a 60-65 mph limit probably will have close zero impact on speed related teen accidents

one thing the auto industry loves is packing your car full of crap you dont need....and cant possible fix by yourself.

Im sure a qualified ford dealer at $120/hr wouldnt mind fixing all that crap though ;)

@bodyblue

Kinetic energy is calculated as mass times speed squared divided by 2. This means that a car at 80 mph has 50% more energy to dissipate in a collision than one at 65 mph.

You select only a head-on collision because it's the most dramatic accident, but it's far from the most likely. In any case, lowering the speed at which one can drive may not necessarily prevent accidents, but it will lower their gravity or severity if or when they occur. Yes, even in head-on collisions, the survival chance may go from 5 to 7% only, but it will nonetheless increase.

Honestly, how could this be a bad feature for a teenage driver. Young drivers need every advantage they can get until they gain the experience necessary to deal with every situation that can present itself. I would think that the parents should be privy to some insurance discounts with this feature. Not to mention the peace of mind knowing you can protect both your child from juvenile behavior and your car from excessive speeds while allowing your teen to gain some independence. When you teach kids to ride bkie you give them training wheels, this is the automotive equivalent. Its not fool proof, but it is fool resistant. I can't think of too many positive experiences that a 16-18 year old can have at 80 mph on public roads, other than the sheer thrill of speed and the look of terror on every other driver's face.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but Thank you Ford!

As far as teenagers not wanting Fusions, as far as I am concerned, if I ever have a teenage child one day, I'd impose a midsize-or-larger car on them if they wanted to drive. (Of course, I am writing as someone who asked for, and got, a first-generation Mercury Sable as his first car.)

@kchoz: Close, but not exactly accurate. Speed is a scalar quantity, velocity is a vector (quantity+direction). Kinetic Energy is half of the mass times the velocity squared. Therefore a collision of two bodies traveling towards each other would have a higher kinetic energy transfer than two bodies traveling in the same direction.

We are becoming a Nanny State...I could see some elected official thinking this was a good idea for ALL cars. Just wait.

This is the start of a future where the top speed of any car is like 40. Horrible idea