Ford Chip-in-a-key.

[clutch-monkey]

thats what i do in the mini, can't afford even a minor crash in that car...

[cmcpokey]

thats what i do in the mini, can't afford even a minor crash in that car...

same in the rx-7... leave big gaps between you and the car ahead of you, and stay driving fast enough to keep a big gap to the one behind you too.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Supid people are stupid all the time. Drunk and stoned people are only faded when they're drunk and stoned.
Though I have no facts to back this up, I would think that the stupid drivers during the day with more traffic have much more potental to hurt others, than a drunk driver at night. I'll admit there are a lot of exceptions, but that's the way I see it when looking at my high school class.

if you are smart enough to drive presumingly regularly (so leave apart exceptions) drunk or doped up, you are probably stupider than all the folks around you, even when you are sober (not you in particular F6 ). and unfortunately, I have facts behind this statement.

[nota]

if you are smart enough to drive presumingly regularly (so leave apart exceptions) drunk or doped up, you are probably stupider than all the folks around you, even when you are sober (not you in particular F6 ). and unfortunately, I have facts behind this statement.

I have facts which state that drivers affected by cannabis are no more likely to cause motor vehicle accidents involving injury, than are sober drivers

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...-post2989.html

[f6fhellcat13]

if you are smart enough to drive presumingly regularly (so leave apart exceptions) drunk or doped up, you are probably stupider than all the folks around you, even when you are sober (not you in particular F6 ). and unfortunately, I have facts behind this statement.

Shortly after I posted, the exact same thought occured to me.
EDIT: There are drugs other than weed that screw you up much more, I think that's what's being reffered to.

[Falcon500]

you are continuing to use your derogatory tone.
I'm not going to defend my statements or whatever my experiences have been, it doesn't concern you or this thread.

a recent statistic (as I said, it's a growing problem in Italy) showed that of all the accidents caused mainly by speeding and dangerous driving, in half of them the subjects were driving under the influence.
in many of those accidents people died. More than one person at a time, as you said (recently, also two policemen lost their life trying to stop the car). Ironically enough, the driver is usually the survivor.

that's my point and my concern.
a drunk/doped up driver is obviously more dangerous than a sober stupid one. I hope that you will agree on this at least, but actually I doubt you really care about what I'm saying, I feel like you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

besides, simply because you say you know about drugs and youth (I'm not discrediting your claim), it doesn't mean you know more than everyone else on those matters, so making blanket statements is kinda out of line.

again, I don't feel like you are respecting everyone's opinions and ideas.

And why doesnt it? speaking from experiance can be a great boon to any thread ever seen matra or henk make an irrelivent post on matters such as this?

Well now your combining several dangrous factors (somthing that wasnt mentioned earlier a combination of speed and drugs) But I most certianly will agree that drugged/drunk drivers speeding and doing other stupid things is by far a more likly accident, and yes its funny how the survivor seems to be the driver.

Of course blanket statements limited to your country are fine of course

I feel your being a bit of a girl about this we are not directly speaking there is no tone to speak of you just seem to be looking for an issue to increase whatever precieved problem you have here.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I have facts which state that drivers affected by cannabis are no more likely to cause motor vehicle accidents involving injury, than are sober drivers

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...-post2989.html

I completely respect that study, and probably cannabis isn't as dangerous as other drugs while driving, but it doesn't change my mind on the matter.

And why doesnt it? speaking from experiance can be a great boon to any thread ever seen matra or henk make an irrelivent post on matters such as this?

Well now your combining several dangrous factors (somthing that wasnt mentioned earlier a combination of speed and drugs) But I most certianly will agree that drugged/drunk drivers speeding and doing other stupid things is by far a more likly accident, and yes its funny how the survivor seems to be the driver.

Of course blanket statements limited to your country are fine of course

I feel your being a bit of a girl about this we are not directly speaking there is no tone to speak of you just seem to be looking for an issue to increase whatever precieved problem you have here.

My wasn't a blanket statement, but a quotation of a scientific research as Nota's one. while you justified your sentences just by saying "I know more then you think about drugs and youth".

And I would ask you to use punctuation, reading your posts is not that easy.

I feel you are not adding something to the thread but that you are/was just picking on me.

I'm fine with my posts.

[Falcon500]

My wasn't a blanket statement, but a quotation of a scientific research as Nota's one. while you justified your sentences just by saying "I know more then you think about drugs and youth".

And I would ask you to use punctuation, reading your posts is not that easy.

I feel you are not adding something to the thread but that you are/was just picking on me.

I'm fine with my posts.

At first you gave a very vauge oddly resembling a blanket statement about what you thought was an issue. You only recently revealed it to be scientific, im wondering how im supposed to know unless you say somthing of the sort? For our beanfit Nota also added a link which doesnt hurt It helps bring us up too speed as opposed to just making vauge statements (although comming from italy im not expecting a link just poining out it never hurts)

Ok then how about my own experiances of actually working with junkys in securty and dealings with them in life?(really great fun to deal with the dregs of society as im sure you can imagine) or how about the fact I have worked with numerous youths thanks to a goverment back training program I have worked with? but your not discrediting this claimand Good to see you said somthing along the lines ofyou dont know me and shouldent comment and didnt apply such a thing to your own actions.

I could post some lacking moments of your own issues with english but then again with it being your 2nd language that would be unfair, but likewise your own isnt perfect alot of the time I feel you shouldent really comment when your own is lacking often.

And your wingeing about apprently being picked on is a real adition as well? Im adding points discussing factors involving alot of car accidents ,just so happens speed and distractions have been said numerous times to be major contributing facotrs in alot of crashes involving youths. Also your arguing a point I agreed with just meerly said it isnt that big of an issue most other places how exactly is that adding to the thread?

Your fine with reinterating the same point I never totally disagreed with in the first place.

[Clivey]

This isn't government nanny state stuff. This is parental nanny state stuff.

This feature is not imposed by the government, it is set by the owner of the car. No data is sent or collected anywhere. If the owner doesn't want to use it, they don't have to. It's intended to put a limit on the car when they let little Johnny or Susie get behind the wheel to go to town. I don't see the harm if it's the parents' car.........I trust kids about as far as I can chuck'em one-handed these days.

Like I said, it's just a marketing gimmick to draw in a certain demographic of buyers. It'll probably work too.

I realise that this isn't imposed by the Government, but what I was trying to say is that IMO it's just as bad. I personally resent people taking away my freedom when I've not done anything to warrant it - that's all.

In the first year that I was driving, I didn't do anything that was reckless or irresponsible on the roads - I drove just as a 30-40 year-old car enthusiast would do, and I still drive that way. Bearing that in mind, if my parents had demanded that I use a system such as this, I would have put the bloody electronic nannying key in the microwave in protest! Then see how well the stupid electronics work!!

[ThisBlood147]

I realise that this isn't imposed by the Government, but what I was trying to say is that IMO it's just as bad. I personally resent people taking away my freedom when I've not done anything to warrant it - that's all.

I can identify. I never did anything irresponsible behind the wheel my first few years having a license. Never got into any trouble....never broke any speed limits by more than 10mph. Hell, I didn't even like loud music. And you know what, I could have cared less if my parents had a feature in the car that limited my speeds to 80mph or the stereo volume to less than half. I was never gonna exceed those limits anyways.

In short, I think calling this chip-in-key system the dawn of Big Brother in the automotive industry is a bit rediculous......and at the same time, hilarious. Shows how keen a grasp some ppl have over this topic. If you think this little gimmick is invasive, I'd love to see some of your arguments on the matter of Nissan's GT-R "black box". Oops..............I said the G word.

And no...........this is not as bad as government installed control devices. Honestly, if you're naive enough to believe that.........you obviously haven't been around much. There's a big difference between your big brother.........and "Big Brother". One day, when you have children of your own....hopefully you'll understand.