“MyKey” lets parents limit teens’ driving speed

[JonLP24]

Source: KansasCity.com

DEARBORN, Mich. | Ford Motor Co. calls its new safety technology for teenage drivers “MyKey.”

It probably should be called “MyParentsKey” because the feature that Ford announced Monday will let parents slow down their kids in the family car.

MyKey allows parents to limit teen drivers to a top speed of 80 mph, cap the volume on the car stereo, demand seat-belt use and encourage other safe-driving habits.

MyKey will be standard equipment on the 2010 Ford Focus and eventually on all Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models.

“This is a huge step in the right direction,” said Ellen Gaddie, director of JourneySafe, an outreach program established by the Gillian Sabet Memorial Foundation, which was started by the parents of a California teen killed in a 2005 crash. “Ford has identified all of the things we consistently talk about. Kids speed. Kids don’t wear seat belts. Kids like to play loud music while they drive.”

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/829675.html

[davidinalameda]

1. you're gonna have lots of people buying this!

if I had kids, I'd buy it

[kitty1]

2. Sign me up; My 17 year old is going for his 2nd road test attempt

next week. Is there something in those keys that can force your kid to be home at the right time. Maybe a recorded alarm with the screeching voice of the parent coming on if the smell of tobacco or weed emanates thru the car.

[Mojorabbit]

3. It seems it might be dangerous

in some situations. For example there is a crazy person in front of you weaving in traffic and someone is on your tail. You have a chance to speed up and pass the weaver, you put your foot on the gas and.....

[Codeine]

12. There are VERY few situations

where more speed is the right choice. Considering how many inexperienced drivers cause accidents with too much speed I think the balance is well in favor of something like this.

[tinrobot]

17. Pass a crazy person weaving in traffic?

Should a driver even attempt something like passing a weaving driver? What if that crazy person weaves into you as you pass? Not a good idea for a young driver with little driving experience.

Slowing down and giving the crazy person some room is a better option.

[Mojorabbit]

26. Hey I live in Florida

and have passed plenty of crazy drivers to get out of their way. My point is that there may be situations when a short burst of speed might be needed.
I don't know if the program in the car allows for that.

[MissMillie]

115. yep

let the crazy person pass you.

Actually, in my state the rules of the road say that if you know someone wants to pass you, you're supposed to pull over and let them (even if you're already driving over the speed limit).

Not that this ever happens, mind you, but it's the rule

[quakerboy]

22. at 80 mph?

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. A crazy person weaving in front of you AND someone on your tail?

And you think passing a weaving person at over 80mph would be the safe option?

In that situation, touch your brakes - just enough to get the lights on, and get the car behind you to back off. Then you can slow down more, the person behind you will pass you, and you can let the 2 bad drivers tangle with each other. If that combination comes up more than once in a blue moon, that is.

[Mojorabbit]

38. Yes I pass the car

this is Florida home of the crazy driver and 80mph is the flow of traffic speed on the interstate.
It is almost worse than driving in Europe here.

[Juneboarder]

71. What about...

all those senior citizen drivers? Are they all going 80mph as well? I mean really now... there is no reason to be cruising at 80... maybe picking up your speed to 80 to pass, but nobody needs to be cruising at 80.

[slampoet]

88. The key limits top speed not cruising speed.

[Realityhack]

134. Um...

did you read the post you responded to? The poster clearly knows that and you in no way invalidate their point.

[Realityhack]

100. Very poor choice of examples.

Senior citizens get in more accidents per mile driven than any other group including teens.
Going 5-10 mph over the limit (ie with traffic) actually reduces accidents.

IMO the chip is fine. Peoples arguments here are exactly the same crap BS 'examples' we heard when people talked about making seatbelt use mandatory. And this isn't even mandatory. If you live where it would be a problem or you think it could be... you don't use it. For others it might be a fine choice.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Downshift.

Look officer, my brake lights work fine. I don't know what he was doing when he hit me.

Edit: :sarcasm:

[DainBramaged]

39. The chance is nill, so just slow down and chill

[Mojorabbit]

46. Nope

you don't slow down here on our roads unless you have a death wish.

[JonLP24]

52. Phoenix freeways are insane

Over 1 weekend we've had 6 deaths 2 within miles of each other at roughly the same time. Not to mention there were other accidents.

[Realityhack]

48. Speeding up to over 80mph?

That is the wrong way to handle most situations including the one you describe. If you speed up to 90 or 100 and then you still get hit it is far more dangerous than if you back off and let the other car pass.

In addition, in many states there are literally no roads on which 80mph is legal and very few where average speed comes close to it.

[Mojorabbit]

62. I will say again

80 is the flow speed on the interstate here. You will take your life in your hands slowing down. When you are in three or four lanes of traffic and the person in front of you is driving erratically, you get away from the car when you have an opening. Better than being hemmed in when the driver decided to make a crazy move.

[kick-ass-bob]

66. Yes, but the quickest way to create distance at that speed

is to slow down.

Odds are, you are going 85 MPH when you pass the car, giving about a 2-3 second window where you are next to the dangerous car, directly putting your life in the hands of the erratic driver, instead of yourself.

If you slow down to 75, you do not have any time next to that car, and drivers behind you have more time than that to react to your drop in speed. No one going 80 is going to run through someone who takes their foot off the gas enough to drop to 75.

[Mojorabbit]

85. You have never driven our interstates

the normal flow of speed is 75-80 or else 25-35. Major congestion.

[Realityhack]

101. Nice job ignoring the post you are responding to. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Wrong.

At best, you are exaggerating.

[Juneboarder]

72. Where in FL are you?? n/t

[Mojorabbit]

82. Orlando

Driving I-4 is an adventure.
I75 is fun too.
They are trying out variable speed limits on some portions of I-4
Speed Limit Signs That Change At Moment's Notice Appear On I-4
Similar Signs Used In Northeast, Europe

POSTED: 6:36 am EDT September 15, 2008

Speed Limit Signs That Change At Moment's Notice Appear On I-4]
ORLANDO, Fla. -- New digital signs that can raise or lower the speed limit have been posted on a stretch of Interstate 4 to help ease congestion.

MAP: Sign Locations On I-4

The sign have been placed on I-4 from Maitland Boulevard to Orange Blossom Trail.

Officials said if there is a crash or some type of incident on the stretch of busy roadway, the signs can be immediately changed.

The signs are not only expected to ease traffic but also make the area safer to travel for motorists.

Some Central Floridians said they are skeptical that the plan will help congestion.

"We are going with the flow of traffic," a motorist said. "Whatever the flow is going, you are going to go. If it is going 70 mph, you are going to go 70 mph. If it is going 30 mph, you are going to go 30 mph."

Similar signs have been used in the Northeast and in Europe, Local 6's J.R. Stone reported.

The signs have been in the works for the past few years but were delayed because of bad software.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

[Bill McBlueState]

103. So...

In this case, the parents would either not use the "MyKey," or they would tell their kid to stay off I-4.

The existence of a few roads where people frequently drive over 80 does not automatically make this a bad idea.

[Mojorabbit]

104. I did not say it was a bad idea

I said there are situations where it might be dangerous. Big difference.

[Realityhack]

94. That is your impression...

but that does NOT make passing a swerving car at 85+mph while being tail gated a safe option for an inexperienced driver.

[Patchuli]

91. Well it goes 80...

you don't want the kid doing faster than that, do you?

[goodgd_yall]

122. I think that's why they set it to max 80 MPH

When I looked at that I thought it seemed too high. But there are situations where you need to speed up to avoid an accident, so I think they had that in mind with capping it at 80.

[Endangered Specie]

125. The limit I think is 80mph...

that would be more than enough to pass someone even in a 70mph zone.

[0rganism]

4. which leads naturally to the question...

why not just have this for everyone? We deem it wise and good for teens to drive under 80mph, wear seat belts, and listen to music at reasonable volume levels. Fair enough. What about adults, then? Is it somehow magically safe when we drive over 80mph, don't wear seat belts, or blast the stereo? I don't think so.

And maybe those breathalyzer ignitions ought to be on every car, not just the ones driven by DUI convicts.

Stop the accidents before they happen. Why wait for the justice system to mandate individually what could easily be handled by car manufacturers in the first place?

I know, I know, your car is supposedly your symbol of freedom and responsibility, right? Yet it seems logical somehow...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[0rganism]

13. Why not check IDs, too?

Should anyone be able to drive a car, just because they have the key? How about requiring a PIN, or a DL swipe too? I don't think that's necessarily unrealistic.

The "free to use" thing is half the problem. I'm willing to be most of us acquired our most basic attitudes about driving during our formative teenage... experiences. Just put these restrictions on all consumer cars right out of the factory, and we've started to address the real problem: when it comes down to it, lots of people who own their cars don't drive any better than the teenagers who borrow their parents' cars. Plus, we'll catch the corner case of teenagers who buy cars.

[KamaAina]

73. Japs??

That is not a word we use out here.

Hint: My supervisor's surname is "Mizusawa".

[Patchuli]

92. I hate the racials slurs

from anywhere. I haven't heard that one in a long, long time. That was prevalent with our parents' generation due to WW2.

[Tunkamerica]

9. Just on the point of interlock devices (breathalyzers)

I've known two people with them. They are dangerous. Your car gives you 5 minutes to find a "safe" place to pull over and wait for several minutes every hour. Then at random intervals while driving you have to blow and do a complex button/blow routine or you get a huge fine. Also, it will give false positives for all sorts of things including vinegar and mouthwash. It also takes up to several minutes to get your car started. All of that is fine if you're in no danger, but I can think of many situations where your life could be threatened just by your inability to drive away. The two people I knew that had it were young females. I always worried when they were on the highway.

[0rganism]

16. it doesn't have to be that obtrusive, right?

Just once on starting the car ought to be fine, in most cases. I think a fair number of people who DUI do so because they're unaware of how very drunk they are, and would rather not put themselves and everyone around them in danger. Knowing that right at the ignition point could be a lifesaver.

[AllHereTruth]

27. In most cases of underage drinking and driving in America...

The teenager will drive impaired in order to get out of trouble.

I dont know if there is a statistic out there to confirm or denounce this, but from my experience, it is cold hard fact.

[Realityhack]

58. What do you mean by 'out of trouble'? n/t

[Codeine]

14. Because I'm an adult.

I can make those decisions for myself, with some measure of wisdom or experience.

[0rganism]

23. I don't think "adulthood" qualifies you to drive 80+ or not wear a seat belt

Know what? Damn near everywhere I go, doing either will get you pulled over and hit with a ticket, because they put your life and those of others around you at risk. Why should everyone trust you, or wait for the cops to remind you of your civic responsibilities?

"Some measure of wisdom or experience" doesn't much, sorry. I've been around plenty of adults who really shouldn't be driving at all, experience and wisdom notwithstanding. And I don't mean that in jest -- these are otherwise intelligent and responsible people, who go batshit crazy behind the wheel.

Cars have already had limiters put in, and seat belts used to be optional at point-of-sale too. Yet we still lose thousands every year because someone thinks their "wisdom and experience" make them capable of driving like Mario Andretti after ploughing through a six pack.

[Codeine]

25. I certainly can.

But I accept consequenses as a result. Speeding will result in a fine if you are not attentive enough to see a law enforcement officer clocking you. Not wearing a seatbelt means you get a fine or die a messy and horrible death.

Don't get me wrong, I pretty much agree with what you're saying. I'm just trying to draw a distinction between what a parent can reasonably demand of a child and what society can reasonably demand of me. :)

[Realityhack]

50. Actually there are places where 80+ is ok.

But for an inexperienced driver that does not know how to recover the car from problems it is much more dangerous than for an experienced driver.

[Realityhack]

49. Actually yes. It is safer.

More experienced drivers ARE able to handle things that less experienced drivers can not. By definition young drivers will be less experienced.

[0rganism]

112. driving safely is safer for everyone, not just for teenagers

Most of what I've learned from experience and seen others learn has jack to do with the kind of restrictions proposed. How to put chains on quick so they don't flap around and fall off, how to drive stick without frying the clutch, what is a safe following distance, how to drive safely in bad weather, how to steer on ice, how to identify potential hazards, and so on. None of that is what was on the agenda.

Unless you're a race car driver, cop, or a stuntman or one of a very few other such professions, driving 80+ is not one of your life skills. You don't typically need to do it, you won't get paid extra for it, and usually doing so just endangers every living thing -- yourself included -- in the vicinity. And even if you do have one of those odd professions, you can still wear a seatbelt. And the stereo? Tell me you don't think more experienced drivers have enhanced super-hearing powers! What kind of experience is going to justify an earth-rattling subwoofer?

What the restrictions are designed to protect against is reckless behavior. We drive around like cars are an extension of our bodies, when in fact they're extremely complex, mass-produced, heavy, fast-moving machines, zooming around with plenty of kinetic energy and dancing a high-risk tango with other such machines, that didn't even exist as such until about 100 years ago. Humanity has fallen in love with the car, we've designed our cities, laws, and lifestyles around them, but that doesn't mean we've adapted well to them as a species. Experience is no substitute for sensible precaution, and the net result of experience can often reduce to operating heavy machinery within simple guidelines anyone can follow. How lucky we are that the car manufacturers themselves could build such restrictions into the product without seriously hindering the normal user!

[Realityhack]

135. Straw man.

I never argued that wearing seat belts or blasting the stereo was safer for more experienced drivers.
The radio depends upon what the volume limiter is set at. As you point out no difference for older drivers.
I think all cars should have a seatbelt interlock. I had one that did and didn't even know it for several years.

As for speed. It is an absolute fact that *on average* more experienced drivers can recover from problems at higher speeds than inexperienced drivers.

There are roads where 80+mph cruising is fine in a modern car.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Most performance cars

top out at 150. The fuel pump cuts off. I don't see why road legal cars are allowed to go that high really. I'm not generally for micromanagement, but I don't see why this isn't regulated tighter.

[Beregond2]

6. 80?! What good does that do?

They should make those built-in breathalizers available to parents.

[quakerboy]

11. I assume

it is because the highest legal speed in any state is 80?

[Beregond2]

47. I didn't know you could go above 70 anywhere.

[Juneboarder]

75. From Wikipedia...

Speed limits

Interstate highways usually have the highest speed limits in a given area. Speed limits are determined by individual states. Rural speed limits generally range from 65 to 75 miles per hour (105–120 km/h), although remote portions of I-10 and I-20 in rural western Texas have speed limits of 80 mph (130 km/h). Typically, lower limits are established in the more densely populated Northeastern states and urban areas of the Midwest, while higher speed limits are established in the less densely populated Southern and Western states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_highways

[panzerfaust]

151. Yep. 90-95 is what I set cruise control in West Texas.

This is not as insane as it sounds. Texas is a big state, and we have superhighways that run for dozens of miles through virtually uninhabited land with hardly the slightest turn.

And I still get passed on a regular basis - sometimes by semi-trucks, occasionally by state troopers (though they always flash their lights, and if you don't slow down a bit, they will pull you over - at least that is the rumor, have not seen it happen).

Also, have only had one tire blow out...

[ben_meyers]

7. What teen worth the name won't have this hacked in

1 minute? I know my grandkids would.

[JonLP24]

8. I agree

Teens are smarter then people give them credit for.

[DainBramaged]

40. I don't think so, even see a car computer? Know where it is?

Know how many there are in the new cars? Do you know what type of tool is necessary to even access the computer system? Dealers only can buy the scanners from the manufacturers, and they have to be updated weekly over the Internet.

They might as well buy an older car without the technology.

Besides, how many people buy a brand new car for their kids as a first car? The whole discussion is moot because of this one point.

[Book Lover]

74. Dain, a lot of modders know the answers to all those questions

On the other hand, I completely and totally agree with your more important point - how many kids are getting brand-new cars in the first place?

[Juneboarder]

77. Maybe not all over, but...

here in San Diego there are quite a few spoiled rotten kids!

My high school, San Dieguito HS, was littered with BMW's, Lexus', Mercedes', Audi's, there was even a kid with a Porsche. This wasn't as bad, though, as our rival school, Torrey Pines.

I felt like the only one in my class that still rode the city bus to school each morning as a senior...

[DainBramaged]

84. sorry, it's the same here in Morris County NJ, my daughter's first car

was a '99 Cavalier. But they are inot SUV's here.

[XemaSab]

124. In Marin county

I knew several kids who got new cars and promptly wrecked them. :P

[DainBramaged]

83. Being a 'modder' myself (heheheeh) you got's to has connections

but yep, kids unless they are from Beverly Hills,ain't getting a new car as the first car.

[Tektonik]

120. Plenty of people get new cars as their first car

My brother got a Scion xA.
My best friend got a Kia Rio.
My other friend got a Chevy Malibu.

So yeah, it happens more frequently than one'd believe.

[dysfunctional press]

90. i think that the idea is for kids who drive the 'family car'...

somebody should come up with a way to have a system that could be installed on existing cars.

[Realityhack]

95. I would be their parents car....

and new cars eventually become old cars.

[Juneboarder]

76. FYI

My wife works at a car dealer and there are quite a few young folks (under 23) that work there. Those auto mechanics have many friends, some even still in high school, and they can always rig the computer for some cashola under the table.

Never say never...

Where there is a will, there is a way...

Peace :hippie:

[DainBramaged]

87. We charge for re-programing, but you can buy reprogrammers

by a number of manufacturers for under $300. You can gain about 25HP, and reprogram the speedo for tire size changes, and you used to be able to override the speed limiters too, but I think they changed that (warranty exceptions)

[Realityhack]

51. Nope.

That isn't very easy on a modern car. It is more likely that they will just chose to drive a friends car.

[quakerboy]

10. odd.

I assume the parents get a seperate key that allows them to go up to 100-120 or whatever the chips allow these days? So then, that must be the logical difference between youth and adulthood? 20mph and the right to buy cigarettes?

What a retard concept. It seems about par for the times.

[Codeine]

15. It's not Youth vs. Adulthood

It's parent's assuming responsibilities and setting limits for their kids, as is their job.

[quakerboy]

19. 80mph.

I find the contrast to the regulators they put on all our cars as interesting as anything else in this.

With all the artificial constructs in our country, I find it humorous that the difference between adults rights and those they are responsible for is only 30 mph(I was just informed that the chips cut it at 110).

[snooper2]

42. Speed and Rev Limiters...

First thing I remove :) :evilgrin:

[AllHereTruth]

20. Codeine; Please read my post below.

[AllHereTruth]

18. Overprotective nature: My View

The overprotective nature of parents today is something that worries me greatly.

From cell phone tracking devices, to monitoring of web activity. Now this. Putting a cap on speed, demanding seat belt use, and capping the volume on the radio. All forced. Without any real teaching methods. Just forced obedience. When are parents today going to learn? Trust in children leads to trust in parents. Thats the bottom line.

I have seen way to many circumstances of overprotected kids entering the "real world" and doing some really, really stupid shit. Teenagers number one dilemma is how to deal with a gained awareness of everything from social behaviors to authority. Not to mention the sense of needing freedom. Thats what "growing up" is all about. Learning. Learning. Learning.

Growing up is not being forced to drive slow. Forced to not blare music. Forced to wear seatbelt. Those are lessons parents should be teaching their children, then trusting them to practice. Its all about life lessons.

Parents should trust their children to go out and make the right decisions. Thats what growing up is; being taught by authority figures how to do things then being trusted to act in the right way.

I can tell you this, with all my heart, if my parents had "MyKey." If they monitored my Internet use. If they tracked my phone. I would NOT be the person i am today. I would NOT have learned. The dumb shit i got into, you got into, taught us lessons that we will then pass along. Discipline can not be taught at the hands of a "key."

So for all you saying "When does this come out. I have a kid i care about." Think about it. What lesson will you be teaching. If you tell you children "I dont trust you." What are you teaching them.

Thats my two cents. Thats my perspective.

[Codeine]

24. I agree with this in large part.

The caveat being that too far in the other direction is just as bad. But parents are entirely too protective.

[customerserviceguy]

41. I prefer "trust, but verify"

I know how much crap I got away with as a teenager, and even my own son got caught sneaking off with my truck to go out drinking with friends. I got his custody from his mother in a nasty situation where she pretty much let him run wild, and everything my new wife and I could do to keep his butt in line was useful. The boy had to go to summer school to pass from the 7th to the 8th grade at his mother's, by the time we were done with him, he had acceptances to both state universities. And he was still a hellion!

You only have a little while to be your kid's parent, you have the rest of your life to be his/her friend. If you do a good job of the former, you (and others) will want very much to be the latter.

[AllHereTruth]

68. You got it.

[Realityhack]

56. I agree in principle, however...

checking to make sure rules are followed is part of what a parent needs to do.
For example, what degree of internet monitoring at what age? Some is very reasonable, after a point not so much.

In addition some of these things are forced on all drivers of particular cars. I had a seatbelt lockout on one car. Never bothered to disable it because it never caused a problem. Leaving such a device in for a teen is reasonable. 80+mph? My first car couldn't even do 70.

IMO by the time the child is that age yes, you should either be able to trust them... or not be handing them the keys. But I can see a reasonable level of intrusiveness into a childs life, especially when they are younger without being over-protective.

[Juneboarder]

78. Ditto...

I couldn't have said it better :):hi:

[krabigirl]

109. Agree with you 100%, and I have two little kids.

[XemaSab]

126. If you have a kid you don't trust to drive in a safe manner

why are you getting them a car? :shrug:

[Realityhack]

136. I agree with that. n/t

[geomon666]

21. Great.

So drunk kids get to die driving 80 mph instead of 120.

[Whoa_Nelly]

28. Mom said 80's my limit

Let's let Toonces drive!
and see how far this old family goes on this here dirt road to nowheeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrreeeeeeee.~.`.~.`.`

[geomon666]

37. ROFL! @ Toonces n/t

[pop goes the weasel]

29. Yay!

Anything that reduces the number of teenaged drivers roaming around residential neighborhoods, blaring their stereos as loudly as possible, is a good thing in my book.

Frankly, I've never understood why cars are built to go over 100 mph when, even when I was a kid, speed limits didn't go that high. Or why it's legal to put sound systems in cars that violate most community noise ordinances if used as intended.

[AllHereTruth]

30. Breathe Breathe Breathe

When i was a kid i never drove my darn motor vehicle over the limit. When i was a kid i always kept my stereo down. - Its the damn kids these days with their god awful video games and their googles.

Come on. Honestly. Take a deep breath and read over what you just posted.

"why it's legal to put sound systems in cars that violate most community noise ordinances if used as intended." <----Are you SERIOUS with this. Breathe. Breathe. Breathe.

[JonLP24]

31. I love sound systems

If you set up right it sounds really good. Noise ordances only apply here after 10pm which is understandable. But you can't limit how loud you set up because what about people that live in those residential neighborhoods? They have every right to make their house as loud as they want it so people in cars should be able too. A good rule of thumb is probaly 15-25 feet in residential communities, if you can hear it from further then that it's too loud. But on highways, freeways, business sections or other non-residential communities who f-n' cares how loud it is.

But this car isn't going to do much too damper that, it is mostly young adults who can afford cars and 6 12's(whatever) that are blaring the music.

[LeftyMom]

32. There are a lot of roads in California where only going 80 will get you killed

a lot faster than speeding will.

If you can't keep up with the flow of traffic you are a menace.

[Realityhack]

53. Inexperienced drivers should probably avoid those roads. n/t

[LeftyMom]

67. Those would be any highway in a rural area.

Kind of hard to avoid unless you live in a city and never travel.

[Realityhack]

99. Sorry...

I don't buy that you need to go over 80mph to maximize your survival chances on a rural highway.
Inexperience drivers have a very hard time recovering from any issue at that speed. Yes going with the flow of traffic is good practice, but their IS a point of diminishing returns. Plenty of cars can't even hit 80 or can barely do so.

[CRF450]

111. Anything thats not an econo car or a really old truck with a 4 banger can go way more than 80....

The new Civics now can easily reach 120mph. Most high performance sports cars now can do 160. My Dad's 97 Crown Vic, can do near 120 also. The only "plenty" of cars you speak of that cant do 80 are older econo cars.

[Realityhack]

114. And their are plenty of older econo-cars on the roads.

Many in the hands of younger drivers because they are cheap.

So your point was what now?

[CRF450]

141. Ever notice how some of those cars are being modified to hell,

And being driven by some mainiacs? They can be just as deadly as a more mature/responsible teen driving a Vette.

[Realityhack]

145. and now you are just stretching.

lets compare the most responsible teen in a corvette to the least reponsible adult in a modified older car.
Sure, that is a meaningful comparison... not.

Sorry but the fact is an older underpowered car that can barely reach 80 can still be a safe car. And it is probably safer than a sports car for the average inexperienced driver. I would look up the safety stats but I don't think you are interested in an intellectually honest debate.

[XemaSab]

128. Would you give your 17 YO son the keys and tell him to go to LA for a week?

The only freeway I can think of with an 80mph de facto speed limit in NorCal is the 5 south of Stockton.

All the other freeways I can think of are more like 70 or 75.

And yes, my ass is still smarting from that speeding ticket I got a few years back. x(

[LeftyMom]

142. 5 north of redding, 80 once you hit the mountains (in good weather)

and again between Davis and Vacaville. And the trip into the bay area via Tracy and the Altamont (I forget which road that is.)

Strangely, I've NEVER got a speeding ticket.

I did get one for California rolling a stop sign almost two years ago. I was going home from work hella sick and had no business driving- I ran the stop sign trying to figure out which way to go to get home in a neighborhood I'd lived in off and on since I was in grade school. :eyes:

[Juneboarder]

80. I'm From CA

And I have to say I disagree... what part of CA are you in?

[LeftyMom]

86. I'm in Sacramento.

I've had people pass me when I was going 85 through the Altamont Pass, all up and down I-5 (hell, north of Shasta I've had people pass me going 90, including CHP- the flow of traffic- at night- was about 95) and on the 80 anywhere from the fringes of the Bay Area out to the Nevada border, and the same on the 5 in the south valley and whatever that highway is going to Vegas.

People routinely drive 80 in town on Sacramento freeways when there's no traffic- actually as a general rule 15 over seems to be the norm, except out in the real rural areas where it might be 20.

South of the Grapevine I have no clue, don't go to SoCal if I can help it.

[rpannier]

33. I oppose this idea

MY wife finds out about she'll "Key" car.

In all honesty -- it's a good idea.
Like everything else, when you're a parent you have an obligation to protect your child.

Driving a car affects not only them, but everyone around them.

Teens do more daring/reckless things than older drivers do -- at least I did when I was a teen and often don't consider the consequences.

In addition -- it's not mandatory when you buy the car that you have to set the 'key.'
I know people with very responsible teenaged children who would never have to use something like this.

It's an option, like the v-chip for the TV.

[LeftyMom]

36. Ooh, that's evil.

I like how the Mrs thinks. :D

[reflection]

35. Oddly, I'm more encouraged

by the limiting of the stereo volume than the speed cap. I must be getting very old. :)

[Orsino]

43. I like the idea, but it'll last only until...

...some crazed stalker is able to chase down a teen and kill him/her.

[Realityhack]

54. at 80mph?

If you are running from a stalker at 80+mph you are probably doing it wrong.
Plus there is a much higher chance of being killed in a car wreck.

[Orsino]

59. A stalker willing to pursue at 80+ mph...

...should probably be fled at at least that speed. :D

[Realityhack]

96. NO!!

at 80mph the stalker bumps your car lightly and you die in a wreck.
Has this ever happened or are you making shit up like poison candy on Halloween?
By all means flee pursuit but nobody is jumping out of a car at 60 to pull you from yours. Drive to the police station etc.
But increase your speed in an already dangerous situation to the point where the teen driver will kill themselves without being perused? Not the right way to do it.

[Orsino]

102. Well, fleeing more slowly than one's pursuer is a...unique tactic. n/t

[Realityhack]

113. Right because someone will jump out at 60 and pull you from the car right?

Come on. If they are bumping you around slower is safer. Get to the police or whatever. Going faster they will probably catch up and a tiny bump is the end of your life.

Also has this ever happened? Because I bet some inexperienced driver losses control and crashes at 80+ about every day (or even more frequently than that).

It is like claiming you will be thrown free from a crash because you didn't wear a seatbelt. It is stretching in the extreme.

[Orsino]

116. I'm not sure.

You have fixated on bumping, which is only one sort of pursuit. I was thinking more along the lines of avoiding non-vehicular assault or kidnapping.

To return to my point, governing automobile speed for minors my generally be a good thing, but if just one teen is abducted or assaulted because s/he couldn't flee, that will weigh heavily in public opinion.

[Realityhack]

117. "avoiding non-vehicular assault or kidnapping"...

and you need to exceed 80mph to do that when exactly???

[Orsino]

121. When someone is chasing you in a car...

...or Lee Majors turns into a stalker.

[Realityhack]

133. Which brings us back to my point.

If someone is chasing you in a car... they are either going to just follow you. In which case you can proceed at a safe speed to a police station. OR... they are going to try to ram you off the road before that.
Either way going over 80 increases risk rather than decreasing it.

I don't think anyone chasing me in a car would have any greater chance of hurting me if the speed where caped at 80mph.

Again I ask... has any such situation ever happened?
Can you describe specifically how the speed limiter (set at 80mph) would cause the pursuant to 'get you', and how not having it would let you get away in the same situation?

[Orsino]

137. I seem to have touched a nerve.

I won't trouble you any further.

[Realityhack]

146. Your inability to provide a single example is indeed getting on my nerves. n/t

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XemaSab]

129. And what if we HAVE to torture that terrorist

because there's a nuclear bomb in a major American city, and if we DON'T torture him it'll go off and millions of people will be dead?

What about THAT, huh? :shrug: :P

[Realityhack]

147. ding ding ding!! n/t

[ixion]

44. makes me happy to have been a teenager in the 70's

when you could still raise hell w/o getting sent to GITMO.

[slackmaster]

69. V-8 engines, real fireworks, unlimited model rockets, and even

LAWN DARTS!!!

[ixion]

70. exactly... the good 'ol days

those things conjure up many fine memories.

[yurbud]

45. at 16, I got in an accident seeing how many multiples of posted curve speed I could do

It was 25 and I got up to 75 before the car wouldn't respond to steering input--it was like I was driving on glass.

The car went through a barbwire fence, high centered on an ant hill, and a metal fence post came through the floorboards and hit my friend in the ass (to the side, so he didn't lose his virginity).

[bean fidhleir]

55. Solving the wrong problem again. It's a capitalism thing, maybe.

I'd hate to think it's a human thing.

What they should be doing is making tiny, lightweight cars so that people can use to travel from here to there and back at the least-possible cost. Who EVER needs to go 80 mph in a personal vehicle?? And I mean *needs*.

[Realityhack]

57. On some roads anyone who wants to maximize their survival chances.

There are plenty of places where 70mph is traffic speed for example. And being able to speed up a bit in a pinch could be important.

Go 50 and you drastically increase your odds of an accident.

[bean fidhleir]

60. So why is making bigger, heavier, more expensive vehicles a better solution

than changing the traffic laws?

Not all that many years ago there was a problem in Israel where women were being attacked in the street at night. What solution did the government choose? A curfew on women, of course!

Making needlessly overpowered cars whose use causes problems and then adding restrictors onto them to try to solve the problems is the same kind of screwball "thinking".

[Xithras]

61. Better (and cheaper) solution: Buy them an underpowered car.

My daughter is only a few years away from getting her license. When she gets it, she's going to be limited to the slowest, most underpowered vehicle on the market. Do they still make 3 cylinder engines?

I'll pitch it to her as an environmental thing, and she'll lap it right up.

My dad bought me a 1974 Firebird for my first car, and to this day I think it's the most idiotic decision he ever made. I came to that conclusion as I lost traction on I-580 east dropping down into Livermore off the Altamont, as my car lost traction and started to slide sideways on a wide sweeping curve at 145MPH. I was 16, it was 3AM, and it seemed like a good idea right up until that point.

[mainegreen]

63. My car couldn't get above 55.

And it took a damned long time getting there.

The damned spare tire was stored ON TOP OF THE ENGINE!

Seriously underpowered. Also safe.

However, it was a Subaru so I did the other stupid thing kids do: getting said vehicle stuck off road up some creek deep in the woods.
Not likely to kill me, but a damned pain in the ass.

[Xithras]

64. I'll happily deal with that issue.

My parents missed a 4AM knock at the door only because my car missed the eucalyptus tree along the freeway by 6 feet. I'd decelerated to about 90 by the time I left the roadway, but there were six of us in the car and it wouldn't have been pretty.

Oh, and my car normally wouldn't do that either, but anyone familiar with that stretch of roadway will tell you that it's a 2+ mile long, straight grade with a reasonably steep pitch. My car normally topped out around 120, but I had a gravity assist.

That was the only muscle car I ever owned. My next car was a Beetle.

Today, I own a Subaru Forester. I wouldn't call it underpowered, but it won't win any races. She's getting something with LESS power than even that.

[CRF450]

110. Underpowered cars are not always a good idea.

Sometimes in heavy traffic you gotta get up to traffic's speed QUICKLY, or to cross lanes and get out of the oncoming traffic's way.

I almost got in a wreck in my dad's Grand Caravan once (86 model with a 4 banger) trying to cross a highway, when I could have easily done it in my car which has a 350hp v8. Takes off much slower than I expected which is typical for a 4cyl, where as a v8 would have near instant torq from idle.

[tinrobot]

79. My parents gave me a 1973 Ford Pinto station wagon

Country Squire edition with wood panels on the sides.

Not only was it slow, it was so ugly, I never drove it anywhere someone could see me.

[Bearware]

65. Arguments remind me of old seat belt arguments

The clincher for me was the rebuttal to the argument that without a seat belt you could be thrown clear. There was a woman race car driver who's car flipped over and caught fire. She said because she was wearing her seat belt she had enough awareness to find a way to crawl out of the car before she was burned alive. Far more people who are not wearing seat belts are seriously injured or killed especially those that are "thrown clear" of the car into traffic or brick walls. If she had not been wearing the seat belt she would have died in the fire before they could get her out.

I would rather see them limit the speed to 70 - it's done all the time at lower speed to buses and other vehicles and the driver compensates accordingly. For any situation where a kid could save his life if he could go over 70 or 80, there are hundreds to thousands of situations where the kid would survive because he could not go that fast. The same goes for people in other
cars that would be killed by a kid losing control when going over 80. Increased speed increases the energy involved and reduces control
and reaction time. If you go fast enough the seat belts, air bags and energy absorbing zones on the car can no longer protect you and
people in the other cars you might hit.

[Realityhack]

97. Very well stated. n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

81. yeah it will take some clever kid about 10 seconds to disable that shit...

and make a nice profit off of his friends

[Xenotime]

89. Sounds unfair. What if there is an emergency?

[kitty1]

93. I guess it's all about odds here. The chance of some joyriding....

teenagers hitting the gas while out with their friends is a much more plausible situation than a teenager having to speed up to avoid an emergency.

[Realityhack]

98. Odds of needing to go 80 vs. an inexperienced driver losing control at 80+

See the seatbelt post above.

Please also note that a fair number of cars on the road CAN'T go 80mph+. And a lot of them would be considered fine safe cars for a new driver.

[CRF450]

107. Honestly, I'd rather figure out a way to keep people from running red lights...

Than simply speeding down the highway. Thats where a big majority of car deaths accur. I'v gone 165mph a few times in my current car, still alive. In my truck, I'm scared to go any faster than 90.

The main problem I see with new drivers is not speed alone, its inexperience, and distractions. Park next to a high school watch how many teens you see with the cellphone glued to their head. Look at that thug looking kid with the thumping system, looking at some girls and not watching the road.

[Realityhack]

118. The sound system volume is limited and there is a seatbelt lockout....

that is a good start on some of the other issues.

[CRF450]

132. By how much?

Atleast let their be good enough volume to hear the radio with the windows down. I also have a powerful sound system in both my vehicles, but not a showoff about it like alot of people are.

What we really need is better driver schooling, not the bare minimum crap that I went through in driver's ed 5 years ago in highschool. All they teach you is the laws of the road and barely how to actually "drive" a car! I'v also seen alot of teens, especially the girls, wait till they're 18 to get their license without ever being behind the wheel. If kids these days are to take a driving course like I did (which was for racing, but they put you through alot of emergancy situations and teach you how to react and avoid an accident) our roads would be better safer! I know that most parents wouldn't pay the costs like mine did, but it is so much more beneficial than just drivers ed, you get better driving experience and knowledge, it also helps you get lower insurance rates. At the age of 21 right now, I have a 01 Trans Am WS6, a very fast car! And an 04 Dodge Dakota, crew cab, 4x4 truck. Both of them combined has my insurance rate sitting at round $700 every six months, with full coverage of course. I have a clean driving record, no tickets no accidents for 3.5 years driving with my current license, and two years prior, with a learners pirmit I got right at 16. For someone of my age with these vehicles that $700 is a bargain! The truck alone would be around $500/six months.

[Realityhack]

138. I fully agree with that.

Better training would result in safer driving in general.

However, I also support the seatbelt lockout (I support this for all cars) and I don't think a radio limiter (set reasonably) is a bad idea for inexperienced drivers.

I encourage everyone I know who has a child starting to drive to send them to courses like the one you took and (where accessible - it is here) ice racing. I agree that these courses teach very valuable skills. I also encourage them not to let the child out alone in the car unless they fully trust them (in terms of skills and not being a jackass).

So yes there are other issues, but as far as vehicle design I think this wasn't a bad start.

[CRF450]

140. Personally I think the current driver's ed should be scrapped.

And be replaced with a mandatory course similar to what I went through. Anyone under 21 who wants a license to drive should take this course to legally drive an auto! Sadly this idea problably wont ever happen...

[Realityhack]

144. I would say it should supplement the existing courses.

But yes it would be a good idea to require it. And I would not make it anyone under 21. If you are driving for the first time at 25 you should take the same course. You may have some better judgment but you will still lack experience and a feel for the car.

[ForrestGump]

148. I'm surprised nobody's yet jumped on you with "there's no earthly reason to do 165"

And, really, unless you're on a track or in one of those common situations (in the movies, anyway) when you're racing from certain doom or to do something noble like save the world, protect your unborn son from the Terminator sent back through time to terminate his life processes (a situation most definitely not envisioned by the persons involved in Roe vs Wade), or to give stuntpersons steady employment, there isn't really a lot of justification for moving anywhere near that rapidly across the landscape. I am one, however, that recognizes the innate and possibly totally irrational and stupid 'need for speed' (though for so long and still primarily a lover of motorcycles for such, and with them it's the acceleration more than mere speed that does the trick), but there's definitely a time and a place for it. The wild west sure as hell is one place for it.

I love West Texas, for example, especially the road that goes through Marfa, Alpine and all that (long one of my favorite in the US) but I think that if I was forced to move across it at no more than 55 mph I'd go nuts. Last year I helped some (bozo) person move from Tennessee and, getting stuck driving the rental truck brought back painful memories of crossing the entire country in a 35-ft U-Haul truck a few years ago, as part of the worst move I ever made. On that trip the truck was a piece of junk with a governor set for too low a speed and with too much of a load and too little engine to do anything but crawl across those hills and slopes that started west of the Pecos, with one highlight being my brakes failing as I came downhill into the San Diego area during rush hour. On this more recent excursion, this time in a shiny Ryder truck that seemed much better than the often-decrepit U-haul offerings, high winds that set in around Amarillo were enough, combined with that accursed engine governor, to slow me to a crawl across the rest of Texas and eastern New Mexico, and crawling across that vast high-plains landscape is the definition of crawling. Promptly upon crossing the NM border, just beyond the first exit, the truck developed engine problems that plagued me the rest of the trip (the first clue being the oil that gushed all over the hood and windshield) with the short version of an unexpectedly long story being that it took me three days to cross NM. Now, I absolutely LOVE New Mexico, but that is not the way to see it. So, yeah, don't anybody talk to me about driving slow out there on America's highways; I crossed a third of this damned country in a big yellow covered wagon. Lawnmowers passed me. Boy bands came and went on the pop charts while I doggedly crossed the West, avoiding such things as sleep, good nutrition, and (yes, this most definitely did not make me happy, but neither did losing half a day of travel every time I stopped) turning off that satanically possessed engine when I refueled. The West is beautiful, but not so much in a moving truck with a governor that kicks in and starts to slow the behemoth JUST as you're picking up speed going downhill in hopes you'll coast uphill a way. Even those of us who recognize the extraordinary beauty and richness of landscapes and habitats that many others wrongly consider 'sterile,' pretty much every piece of open ground west of the Mississippi is more happily traversed at 70-100 mph than 50-60. Falling asleep at the wheel kills, too.

Here in Las Vegas, for example, the nearest decent sized cities are a minimum of 300 miles away and, on the freeways between them, 100mph is not at all unusual a speed for people to cruise along at -- certainly 80mph would place you among the slower drivers out there in the desert. One of the first things I learned all those years ago, when I moved my motorcycle riding on to the highway, was that survival typically seems enhanced by staying ahead of traffic and so even in a car I'm usually one of those people on the front edge as far as speed is concerned, when it's a safe option (if you're a good motorcyclist you'll by definition be a defensive driver, and probably more alert than most). So, again, higher speeds not only feel right to me but, if you're suitably skilled and alert, are safe when it's the right traffic environment. I can only assume that at least some police hereabouts agree, or I've just been incredibly lucky since my last ticket (back in '91 or '92, I think, on the proverbial Ventura Highway). I do seem to have a sort of five-O detector, something that seems particularly prevalent among people who not only ride motorcycles but who ride them a lot and as a major means of transport (i.e., not all that many Americans), or that I'm possibly protected by some kind of aberrant guardian angel who hates authority figures and takes every opportunity to Stick It To The Man. What I find interesting are the times my LEO-sensing abilities seem to utterly desert me and I tear past some officer at highly illegal speeds. Now, assuming I don't also possess sporadic powers of invisibility, I have to assume that these officers do actually see me flagrantly breaking the laws of American humankind and, occasionally, physics. When I rode out to Vegas in 2004, a few hours behind the few possessions I actually had possession of, in one relatively short stretch of California freeway I was passed twice by San Bernadino County sheriffs, on motorcycles (two separate encounters), both times while I was exceeding 100mph. I don't know what the speed limit was thereabouts, probably 70, but it sure as hell wasn't the Ton. I was sweating (well, I was anyway...hottest ride I've ever had, hands down) and palpitating, already regretting my nonyouthful exuberance in light of the expensive ticket I so obviously and fairly earned, but they didn't even look at me and probably didn't even blink (admittedly, neither had lights or siren going so they were also breaking the law, though I think my trying a citizen's arrest at that point would only have deteriorated the situation). I have a strong feeling that, unless they have some sort of directive to write tickets or meet a quota or the like, police on rural stretches of road in this part of the country (there being exceptions around small, greedy towns, of course...the blatant and evil speedtrap in Searchlight, NV, for example, is pretty well known) don't even look at people unless they think they're exceeding 100mph or maybe 90, and I bet a lot of the radar guns on these desert interstates are set for 90mph, at least, or they'd be going nuts every few seconds. Jon and Ponch would be run off their feet issuing citations to evildoers if they actually enforced the posted limits.

As you point out, it's bad behavior at intersections and the like, at lower speeds, that's probably the worst culprit and I've always thought that peace officers should spend more time staking out intersections than trying to catch speeders on open highways if their actual intent is to make the roads safer. And, even so, they'd make plenty of revenue at intersections: there's one on the Strip that's often staked out by as many as six motorcycle officers, at the same time, and they hand out tickets all night when they're on, pulling over one car after another (THEY stop a bunch of dangerous drivers and, in the process, rack up what must be impressive citation figures). Very often, though, the going speed in urban areas is not only way beyond posted levels but is irrationally high and too often it's not even remotely safe because what you end up with is a high-speed traffic jam with people essentially moving along bumper-to-bumper at 85mph, and who knows how capable or alert half of these folk are. The 285 in Atlanta's like that and I spent many years in the Los Angeles area (admittedly, that's usually more a 5 mph traffic jam, but those car-dwelling Angelenos sure WOULD cruise along at 85 while shaving, reading the paper, and having a mocha tofutti colonic if they could just break out of traffic), but it was the Eisenhower freeway and Dan Ryan Expressway in Shi...I mean...Chicago that scared the chi..I mean...devil out of me. That was 23 years ago and I'm still shaking from the experience. Here in Vegas the traffic's still not typically as dense as in LA, for example, but the desert speeds tend to prevail around town, both where it's relatively feasible (on my bike I routinely hit 115mph on the short stretch of the 215 freeway that I used to take to the Strip, that speed putting me a mere 10-15mph or so ahead of most traffic each morning) and where it's downright inappropriate and massively stupid, as if the hordes of drunk drivers and (MUCH worse) taxi drivers here weren't bad enough.

I can't drive 55.

But I will, if it's the saner option.

I just don't like it much. :D




...and it REALLY sucks outside of 35-mph zones... :hide:



P.S.: 165? That'd scare me to death. Maybe not so much in a car, but for sure on my bike. My motorcycle will likely hit an honest 200 mph, or very close to it, but I have no desire to even close in on that. I routinely cruise at 100-110 mph on these desert roads and the thing feels like it's just trundling along (and that, right there, is probably the main practical use of an engine and power-to-weight ratio like that), but a funny thing happens starting at around 120 mph and being pretty much undeniable at 130: tunnel vision, literally as in a tunnel, massive swift changes in apparent-wind buffeting and resulting visual distress, and a very acute awareness that (i) all it'd take to kill me is a jackrabbit, a Russian thistle, or perhaps even a spot of gravel and (ii) this thing is still happily accelerating!!! Man, really, it was probably just hitting its optimal power band. Thusly I abandoned my few recent experiments with speed...I'm totally comfortable at 110 but just another 15 mph or so more and I'm suddenly re-enacting the Chuck Yeager X-1 rocket 'plane scene from The Right Stuff. I'm happy for my bike to hit the double-Ton, just not with me riding it. Uh-uh. Beyond 150 there be dragons...

[CRF450]

149. Its scary but exilerating as hell to go that fast.

I dont really go anymore than 130 on those wide open roads (with NO other cars on it of course) But 165 was one of those rare moments where I just wanted to see what the car can really do. Thats about where 5th gear tops out at, but 6th is so tall that it cant even go anymore than 130 in that gear.

[goodgd_yall]

123. I think the seat belt demand feature sounds really good

And I hope it's for passengers and drivers. The speed cap---well, safety is really a matter of driving the right speed for the situation, so even if you cap the speed at which the car can go, the driver could still be going, say 40 MPH on a residential street or 70 MPH on a windy coastline road.

[Endangered Specie]

127. I have a question: whose buying their kids cars that can go so damn fast?

I mean, my first car's a beat up old truck that can touch 85 on a downhill slope! You'd be a fool to buy your kid a nice new car.

[ContraBass Black]

130. People who want their kids to have modern safety features

Including side curtain airbags, door reinforcements, and dynamic stability control systems not available on cars more than ten years old.

[Endangered Specie]

131. and crappy plastic bumpers...

I dont see anything wrong with a mid-size pick up truck as a first-timer car. Real steel bumpers, frontal airbags, and sitting higher up places you at an advantage (you can see more road and aren't as likely to get hurt in a collision). Fancy stability controls aren't as essential if your limitied to 80mph, and you don't cheap out on the tires. Not to mention in a truck you got a helluva 'crunch zone' in the back.

Also makes for good tailgaiting, and you'll be popular with your friends whenever you need to move shit.

[Realityhack]

139. Oh please no...

Pickups are NOT cars. They are light trucks. They have longer stopping distances, are easier to roll, and harder to control in emergencies. Nothing is safer just because it has steel bumpers.
That 'crunch zone' you talk about isn't a crumple zone. It has a box frame underneath that will transfer the full impact right up to the front of the car. It is NOT designed as a crumple zone for impacts.
Siting higher up makes you feel more in control even when you are not. It can trick new drivers quite easily into thinking they have more control than they do.

Stability control kicks in WAY before 80mph. I don't think it is needed on a new drives car because you should never rely on it but your 'point' regarding not being as 'as essential' under 80mph is complete BS and shows a complete lack of understanding as to what a dynamic stability control system does.

[LeftyMom]

143. Newer cars with safety features absorb the impact of an accident.

Older cars and trucks with rigid frames transfer the force of an accident to the passengers. The older car/truck might come out looking better, but the bags o' meat in the passenger cabin are more likely to be in a bad way.

It's basic physics.

[panzerfaust]

152. Sadly, pedestrians are lacking in these basic safety devices

[panzerfaust]

150. And it will take the kids how long

... to figure a way around it?

I bet that it is cracked before they are released.

I will say that at 80mph, here in Texas you will be holding up traffic on the highways and a danger to those trying to get around your slow moving vehicle.

A BETTER solution is to have cars that will NOT go faster than - pick a speed. Oh, and that do not burn gasoline either.

(NB: please hold any 'you are not taking this seriously' remarks. I work in a Level-I trauma center. I see the results of teen-age (mostly male) driving every day of the week. Death, and maiming that is worse than death - not only of the macho-drivers, but of their innocent victims as well. One of the more recent: 8yo girl in cross walk, vs cracked out 18yom going over 100mph: guess who did better?)