UK Police Want An Automotive Tractor Beam

I vote Orwellian! by Crypto+Gnome · 2003-12-30 00:01 · Score: 1, Funny

Dude! Automotive Tractor Beams? Government control of private vehicles! That is SO 1984. {rolleyes}

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

Re:I vote Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

why do you say it's government 'control'?

after all, the alternative, which is commonly used across the world, is to give the police guns, require them to give a warning, and then have them shoot you dead. But I guess Orwell didn't write about that, so it's not a problem then?

it isn't government control anyway, it's at worst excessive police powers. but anything that keeps police from using deadly force is worth discussing without getting hysterical.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by mlush · 2003-12-30 01:05 · Score: 1

Dude! Automotive Tractor Beams? Government control of private vehicles! That is SO 1984. {rolleyes}
Big Brother does not need Tractor Beams. Big Brother is watching you. If you commit any speed crimes the police would be waiting when you got to your destination. Anyway where did you get that petrol? You know all the petrol is needed for our war with Eastasia.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by ckaminski · 2003-12-30 01:12 · Score: 1

I thought we were at war with Oceania this week?
Re:I vote Orwellian! by diersing · 2003-12-30 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Speaking as a former police officer, I'm not sure how many 'deadly force' situations your solving here. As I understand it, this *tractor beam* will cause a moving vehicle to stop, so without it - your talking about police shooting at a moving vehicle? Afraid that is something that happens primarily in Hollywood my friend.
What it will prevent, or at least reduce, are road blocks, spike strips and high speed chases. And yes, high speed pursuit is absolutely important as the any car involved is much more likely to kill participates or bystanders then a car at rest. But I guarantee, it will cause at situation where a desperate person who viewed their only option as evading, who is now sitting in an otherwise dead vehicle, to open fire and cause a deadly force situation from the police.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Ianoo · 2003-12-30 01:15 · Score: 1

No, last week^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HOceania has been our friend and ally for many years.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:15 · Score: 0

I thought we were Oceania?
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:32 · Score: 0

it will reduce use of other forms of stopping, like road blocks and spikes (which won't work soon anyway, as said in the article) as you say. But there have been many many shootings at road blocks. and ramming of road blocks that are ad hoc blocks of police vehicles. and dangerous attempts to avoid road blocks. and simply crashing into the things at speed.

of course give the police more power, the crim has to respond. there's an arms-race scenario. But the police, having stopped the vehicle, could surely assess the safest way to approach, if they can stop it remotely and safely.
As tempting as it is (especially after the recent shooting of a UK officer) I don't think we can accept a situation where some people are seen as just too dangerous to be halted.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by I8TheWorm · 2003-12-30 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

So cars would get this mod added to allow remote control of the vehicle. In that case, the criminals either 1) learn how to remove the mode, or 2) drive cars that don't have the mod in the first place. What this might prevent is certain cars being stolen as often (there will still be uneducated or risk taking criminals that will steal those cars). In reality, all that happens is what gun control advocates are pushing (if you make guns illegal, then only criminals will have them). Laws don't prevent crime, and there will be those that get around it.

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:36 · Score: 0

Typical moronic repsonse!! And what if a car thief steals a device to stop your car. Suddenly youre car jacked without a chance of getting away. This will kill more people than it will save.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by mlush · 2003-12-30 02:51 · Score: 1

I thought we were Oceania?
Didn't you get the memo??? Reeducation for you me'lad
Re:I vote Orwellian! by gnu-generation-one · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 1

"after all, the alternative, which is commonly used across the world, is to give the police guns, require them to give a warning, and then have them shoot you dead. But I guess Orwell didn't write about that, so it's not a problem then? it isn't government control anyway, it's at worst excessive police powers. but anything that keeps police from using deadly force is worth discussing without getting hysterical."

Uhh, here in the UK, the police don't shoot people who drive too fast. It might be different where you live, but they seem to reserve the firearms for more serious situations.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:58 · Score: 0

they dont have guns in england for the cops, only the special tasks forces
Re:I vote Orwellian! by ratamacue · 2003-12-30 03:15 · Score: 1

Just to nitpick, every instance of government is founded on deadly force or the threat of deadly force. That is what necessarily defines government: the unique "right" to initiate force (and ultimately deadly force) as a means to an end. No private individual or group posesses this power (if a private individual or group initiates force, they are liable for damages to the victim). At the very least, government couldn't generate revenue without forcibly extracting it from the people who actually do generate revenue (the market).
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:34 · Score: 0

I know. the point is to avoid situations where shooting becomes more common. I just don't think we should automatically get all het up about police toolkits as if they are new governmental powers. The police already have the right to stop your vehicle in certain circumstances. new technology doesn't change that, it just means they can do it more safely - perhaps.

and in Northern Ireland, people used to be routinely shot for running road blocks, teenage joyriders - that kind of evil criminal, and NI is still (just) part of the UK, or part of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or whatever ridiculous title you got now.
Perhaps under new panics about terrorism, you'll find people shot for driving past a city of London road block, or driving suspiciously at Heathrow.

about time you gave your country a nice easy name.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Neurotoxic666 · 2003-12-30 04:11 · Score: 0

What it will prevent, or at least reduce, are road blocks, spike strips and high speed chases.

I understand those are very good intentions. But does the end justify the means? How long before this device would be abused? ... or hacked into to cause traffic jams or accidents?

This whole idea makes laws near-useless, because the idea that citizens have the duty to respect the law is being turned into a mechanism where you cannot do anything else than what the laws allow. And we all know we have little or no control over what laws are voted/accepted/written by our governments.

Like you said yourself, this will also create new problems, since breaking this or that law is now impossible. We might very well see people shooting instead of fleeing...

--
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Deadstick · 2003-12-30 04:36 · Score: 1

But I guarantee, it will cause at situation where a desperate person who viewed their only option as evading, who is now sitting in an otherwise dead vehicle, to open fire and cause a deadly force situation from the police.
So, ummm, what will the same guy do at the end of a high-speed chase where police cars are screeching to a stop all around him and the officers don't have the luxury of making a cautious approach?
rj
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Nogami_Saeko · 2003-12-30 04:49 · Score: 1

I think the method I'd prefer to stop stolen cars is just having the government mandate that ignition immobilizers MUST be installed in all new cars sold.

Bypassing a good immobilizer is well past the capabilities of most car thieves out there. Immobilizers that are built into the engine's computer are even more secure.

Even better would be to have a biometric system which the user could set parameters on to ensure the proper person is in control of the car via a fingerprint (ie: from 7am to 7pm, driver must place finger on the reader once to start car, between 7pm and 7am, driver must put finger on the reader every hour of driving time to reauthorize or the car will shut down). The reader could give you 5 minutes of time to authorize, then just slowly start reducing engine power until the car is stopped. I suppose "finger theft" is a possibility as well if cars used this system...

Of course the biometric idea is a bit "futuristic" for most drivers. Even a simple immobilizer that's factory-installed wouldn't stop criminals from bypassing/removing the system on their own vehicles, but it would reduce or prevent car theft entirely (except for idiots who leave the car running with the keys in it).

N.

--
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Re:I vote Orwellian! by I8TheWorm · 2003-12-30 04:58 · Score: 1

I think it's less (though not completely) likely someone would remove another person's body part to commit a crime. Not because of the deterrant of the charges escalating, but because some people just don't have the stomach for that kind of thing.

But I agree that making the vehicle more difficult to steal by a preventative method rather than a postemptive method is a much better idea.

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by GuyinVA · 2003-12-30 05:03 · Score: 0

So what's to stop a bad guy from driving a non cuputer controlled car? Or steal a car and swap licence plates on it?
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Charcharodon · 2003-12-30 05:06 · Score: 2, Funny

What's wrong with deadly force.?
Glock Model 36 $500
7 rounds of 45 ACP pumped into career criminal $1.05
$30,000 saved a year for the next ten years by taking out the human garbage. Priceless.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by roman_mir · 2003-12-30 08:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I hate police. Don't ever cross my way. Police deserve to be murdered for the pieces of shit they are.

That will be all.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:57 · Score: 0

shut up.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by gnu-generation-one · 2003-12-30 09:14 · Score: 1

"about time you gave your country a nice easy name."

You try finding our country on a drop-down list, where you don't know if it's listed under (A)ngleterre, (B)ritain, (E)ngland, (G)reat Britain, (R)oyame-unis, or (U)nited Kingdom, or whether they've put it at the top of the list, rather than in alphabetical order...

Although it's less confusing than reading "E.U." (european union) as an abbreviation, and realising that it's referring to the United States (Etats-Unis)
Re:I vote Orwellian! by RoundTop-VJAS · 2003-12-30 09:43 · Score: 1

The problem with biometrics is that they are still unreliable.

I work for a security company that does install biometric systems..and one of our headaches is fingerprint scanners. the problem is that you must use the same finger, in the same position on the pad, at the same angle, and even then there are quirky. Retinal scanners are much better, however they can detect health information that has privacy issues and are hard to use in a vehicle.

No, a standard immobilizer is the best way (one of hte ones with the chip in the ignition, and maybe a keypad for a clear code for operation).

--
RoundTop
Re:I vote Orwellian! by GimmeFuel · 2003-12-30 10:03 · Score: 1

Government-mandated product safety regulations are always a Bad Thing. It is not up to you to tell me what I should have in my car to make me "safer". Let the technology develop, and if there's a demand for it, car companies will start offering it optional on their cars.

--
live(free) || die;
Re:I vote Orwellian! by spiritraveller · 2003-12-30 11:37 · Score: 1

Speaking as a former police officer, I'm not sure how many 'deadly force' situations your solving here. As I understand it, this *tractor beam* will cause a moving vehicle to stop, so without it - your talking about police shooting at a moving vehicle? Afraid that is something that happens primarily in Hollywood my friend.
Actually, I think they are talking about the kind of deadly force that is applied when a police or criminal's car hits a pedestrian.
That is something that you don't see in Hollywood movies, but it is quite common.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by BiggerIsBetter · 2003-12-30 13:35 · Score: 1

Yup. Welcome to our free society.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 14:34 · Score: 0

Keep the following in mind:

1) Not all chases end in the bad guy getting caught.

2) Some chases end with the bad guy getting into an accident and not resisting the cops (either dead or injured).
Re:I vote Orwellian! by Grishnakh · 2003-12-30 14:44 · Score: 1

They also don't have guns for criminals. It's against the law for anyone but the police to have them. So criminals therefore can't have guns, so this situation shouldn't be a concern.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by FattyLumpkin · 2003-12-30 14:48 · Score: 0

Orwellian... what isn't these days? you can not buy an ad in the media a certain number of days before an election in the US... car control in the UK is "blah" at this point (some how i think our rights will survive if the constitutions does, regardless if police can take control of my car if i am (or they think i am) breaking a law worthy of taking such measures. i was born with out a sense of humor so if this was a joke, you can just laugh at me and get twice the fun. "But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch and use my speed to go downhill?" hmmm... brakes?
Re:I vote Orwellian! by roman_mir · 2003-12-30 19:07 · Score: 1

Maybe it sounds like a flamebate, but at least this is my honest opinion. So, fuck moderators, but at least they are not police. They do not have the same power.

Police, as I said, should be murdered by thousands and fed to fucking pigs.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:I vote Orwellian! by srmalloy · 2003-12-31 17:31 · Score: 1

At the very least, government couldn't generate revenue without forcibly extracting it from the people who actually do generate revenue (the market).
Too late; the government already does. Have you looked at what happens if you 'choose' not to pay your income tax? The threat of being taken away against your will and locked up, again against your will, would be felony assault if it weren't a government making it; that sounds like 'forcible extraction' to me...
Re:I vote Orwellian! by ratamacue · 2004-01-05 03:23 · Score: 1

That is exactly my point.

And thus... by Compact+Dick · 2003-12-30 00:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

we feed the machine that will eventually enslave us.

Forget labelling capitalism, communism or socialism as "evil". It's time for a new eco-political model, one that learns from the mistakes of past systems and is designed to prevent this sort of tipping of the power scales.

--
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]

Re:And thus... by KamuSan · 2003-12-30 00:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Amen.

Problem is that our governments are not democratic anymore: they don't act in the best interest of the population.
OOTH most of the population are sheep that will accept anything as long as they're fed and entertained.

So, the solution is not to install *another* government that thinks it knows best what good is for the people, but to raise the political awareness of the general population.
And I think that the EU, with it's byzantine rules and centralized and ideological rule-making is not going to help. It get's even worse when countries like Germany and France can apparently do whatever they want and won't even hold their own promises. This will only lead to more detachment and desinterest.

Note: I'm not from the UK, but from NL.
Re:And thus... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2003-12-30 01:07 · Score: 1

Will eventually? I for one have already welcomed our new mechanical overlords.

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Re:And thus... by ckaminski · 2003-12-30 01:17 · Score: 0, Troll

How is a speed limiter on your car NOT in the "best interests of the population?" Especially when a new teenager gets behind the wheel of daddies Camaro? Oh, when you're trying to outrun the police? Who have radios galore, guns, helicopters and concussion grenades... :-/

Lorries (tractor-trailers for those of us State-side) have had speed governors for years, although many were removed so rigs could drive faster so as to get their cargoes to their targets faster.

How long before car-hacking becomes more mainstream? ;-)
Re:And thus... by Ianoo · 2003-12-30 01:17 · Score: 1

If you honestly think the government can't and don't watch anything we do whenever they like, you're being naieve. At least with these monitoring systems being public knowledge we can avoid being arrested under terrorism legislation for accidentally browsing on to www.gov.ch and clicking "Communism".
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because it puts the interests of society in front of the interests of the individual. You don't exist to make society better, soceity exists for the betterment of individuals.
Re:And thus... by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-12-30 01:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

How is a speed limiter on your car NOT in the "best interests of the population?"

I can think of several situations, none of them particulalrly common, but there are times when putting your foot down is required to prevent an accident or save a life - accidents that will happen
and lives that will be lost if your engine refuses to do more than 20 or 30 in specific areas.
Re:And thus... by diablobynight · 2003-12-30 02:37 · Score: 0

I can't think of any situations like this, because there would be nothing to increase your speed to get away from because everything is speed controlled, more importantly, though, control is gay, if I get caught breaking the law then pull me over, but if I don't get caught, they just need to do their job better.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:51 · Score: 0

I can't think of any situations like this, because there would be nothing to increase your speed to get away from because everything is speed controlled.

Yeah, a rock/mudslide on a canyon road will sure as hell be speed controlled.

Good job, champ.
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:09 · Score: 0

In England?
Re:And thus... by Glonoinha · 2003-12-30 03:24 · Score: 1

An impending lateral collision, such as getting T-Boned at an intersection by some clown that is not paying attention (talking on his cell phone) and about to blow past a stop sign. Slowing down will not save you, evasive swerving will not save you. Speeding up may be your only chance.

Motorcycle 101.

--
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Re:And thus... by the_mad_poster · 2003-12-30 03:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Last night I had to stomp the accelerator and shoot up from 55 to 70 to avoid an idiot that decided "merging" at a yield sign meant "pulling into uncoming traffic without looking". Slowing down was not an option thanks to the moron tailgaiting me.

A kid came careening down his driveway on a bike a few months back and almost slapped the back of my car while I was doing 45. If I hadn't stomped the gas and shot up to 55 he might be dead now.

I had to drive my girlfriend's father to the hospital after he severly injured himself with a power tool. Ambulances are notoriously slow in the area because of the extremely rural setting. I spent most of the time on open road with a 45 speed limit doing upwards of 80 mph while he gushed blood in the backseat.

I regularly have to speed up to get away from psychopathic tail-gaiting rigs, pickups, and SUVs that don't appreciate you doing the speed limit on the open highway.

In all of these cases, I had to travel well over the speed limit to PREVENT accidents.

In short - when you're a little older, you'll realize that "defensive driving" is a good way to get somebody killed in some fairly common situations. Once you finally have a little bit of experience driving in the real world where everything doesn't always play out like it does in the driving manual, why not come back and share your thoughts with us on the subject?

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:And thus... by LPetrazickis · 2003-12-30 03:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I regularly have to speed up to get away from psychopathic tail-gaiting rigs, pickups, and SUVs that don't appreciate you doing the speed limit on the open highway.

You make good points, but these psychopaths would be playing by the same rules as you if the speed limits were a physical law.

--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Re:And thus... by uradu · 2003-12-30 03:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

> It get's even worse when countries like Germany and France
> can apparently do whatever they want

Despite your disclaimer I find this statement rather amusing. While France and Germany may have gained some notoriety with recent EU actions, and while the UK like profiling themselves as the big truly-free-market economy in Europe, I think you'll find that overall the UK are still much more Big Brother-like than most other European nations. Their attitude towards personal data privacy is making great strides towards American-style non-chalance and cynicism. As far as personal privacy in general is concerned, Orwell's country is doing a great job in covering every square inch with cameras.

If there is one thing the EU is kidding itself about, it's the whole notion that all member countries are equal. That's a joke, and only the ignorant are deluding themselves about it. If the big European economies aren't doing well, no-one is doing well. All the other members can hate and despise Germany all they want, but since nobody is going out of their way to do them any favours, they have to act in self interest every once in a while. Because--as the deepest pockets of the EU--if they don't, everyone else will suffer as well. Most of all Spain and Poland.
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:59 · Score: 0

1) You are out in the countryside for a picnic with your family. Your child trips and smashes her head against a stone. There is no cell phone access and even if there were you could not describe your position to an ambulance. You drive to town on an empty road at the posted speed because your vehicle has been restrained by the invisible tractor beam. Your child recieves care too late and dies. If only you could have driven at a speed sufficient to reach the hospital in time.

2) Apply scenario 1 to hunting accidents, farming accidents, mountain climbing accidents, or any other activity in a remote area.

3) You and your wife are late for a party at your inlaw's house. You are on a two lane road behind a driver that is travleing 3mph below the speed limit. You cannot exceed the posted limit, therefore you cannot reach the speed required to pass without meeting oncoming traffic. Tension grows in your car. You both grow intolerant, a fight breaks out and your wife smacks you upside the head. Your car careens off the road and into a deep pond. Your bodies are never found. If only you could have passed that lazy bastard in the car ahead of you.

Do you need more examples or was that too much already?
Re:And thus... by Nogami_Saeko · 2003-12-30 04:55 · Score: 1

Easy enough - just put a limiter-exception in the chip:

It will allow you full acceleration and power anytime you want it for a maximum of 20 seconds (should be plenty for emergency situations), then it will throttle you back and reduce speed to the regular limit in the chip and wouldn't allow full acceleration again for 2 minutes after.

N.

--
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Re:And thus... by ckaminski · 2003-12-30 04:59 · Score: 1, Flamebait

I do play in the real world, and excepting your "father-in-law" gushing blood in your backseat, none of them require speeding. You are the epitome of bad driver. If you're not prepared to handle idiots merging, well like idiots, or kids careening at you at high speed, I think you need to surrender your license.

I've been in many and caused a few accidents, friend. Not a single one of them was unavoidable by intelligent defensive driving.

The best cure for a tailgater is tapping your brakes. You barely engage them, and you scare the piss out of the idiot on your tail.
Re:And thus... by the_mad_poster · 2003-12-30 05:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

You've either been unbelievably lucky in your driving to date, you're lying about even having a license yet, or you lead a very, very sheltered life.

ASCII Art:

|c|o|i| | |x| | |d| | | | | | |
Why don't you now explain to me (o) how, as idiot1 (i) is merging left without a clue and idiot2 (x) who has just merged IMMEDIATELY behind me, I am supposed to avoid hitting anyone without accelerating? I see one opening there, and it's directly ahead of me. Given that nobody is ahead of me, all other avenues of escape are blocked, and I have a split second before the merging moron crashes into my side, what would you suggest? And as an added bonus, the moron that merged behind me WAS STILL ACCELERATING because they were trying to swerve into the far lane to cut off (d). They barely missed swiping me in the process.
If a kid is flying directly at the side of my car on a one lane street (that means "no swerving without hitting parked cars" in case your sheltered driving experience has never taken you into such an area), why don't you explain to me how to avoid him without speeding up? Swerving is not an option as it's one lane. Slowing down ensures that he slams into my car since he's already on a vector to hit it. So what would YOU do oh brilliant one?

And, I'm sorry for the ad hominem here, but, you are a TOTAL IDIOT. NOBODY in their right fucking mind would "tap their brakes" to "scare" a tailgating trucker. That's surefire suicide. I don't know if you've ever dealt with a trucker with an attitude, but they are not even remotely concerned with running your ass over. They're in a vehicle that could roll over you like a tin can and all they'd temporarily get is a slighter rougher ride. On top of that, if they're right on your ass, THEY CAN'T SEE YOUR TAILLIGHTS. If YOU want to risk your life and the lives of your passengers by "tapping your brakes to scare them" be my guest. I'll be sure to remember you for the statistic you become.

I've been in ONE accident, never caused one. The one accident I was in was caused by my "defensive driving" (ignoring, of course, the fact that speeding up to avoid an accident is a defensive manuever). If I'd have sped up instead of trying to swerve around the oncoming car that t-boned me by running out of a driveway without looking or even slowing, I'd have not been hit.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:And thus... by thrillseeker · 2003-12-30 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

You make good points, but these psychopaths would be playing by the same rules as you if the speed limits were a physical law.
You miss the point - the guy merging at your speed and oblivious to you is going to impact you unless *you* get out of the way - if *you* feel it's unsafe to slow down because the guy behind is driving far too closely and *you* no longer have an option of increasing your speed to keep yourself (and everyone else around) safe then what do you think is going to happen?
Re:And thus... by LPetrazickis · 2003-12-30 05:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

However, people won't tailgate explicitly for the purpose of getting you to accelerate. I'll be quiet now.:)

--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Re:And thus... by vryhpyammoadded · 2003-12-30 06:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why waste time with this car crap and other social control issues? Why not go to the root of the problem and make it mandatory for all citizens to have an electronic implant with tracking, data/bill collection and remote lockout or better yet, kill switch? Now you can prevent all sorts of nasty social issues right at the root!

--
27b-6
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:48 · Score: 0

You're unaware of what the term "defensive driving" means. Please step up to the counter and purchase a clue.

Here's a free sample: WHAT YOU DID WAS DEFENSIVE DRIVING.

Now here's a teaser... "curing" tailgaters with a tap on the brakes is a good way to get road-raged upon.

Aw, hell... the puppy dog eyes... ok... the term "defensive driving" is a method of remaining in control of your vehicle to actively prevent accidents. It's precisely what you described yourself as doing.

To drive offensively, you would have to be person "x" in your example, accelerating at relatively stationary traffic(that is, moving at a speed near yours) and swerving out of the way at the last moment.

To drive cluelessly, you would be person "i", making lane changes without first ensuring that you won't cause an accident.

That should be enough of a start to save you a trip to Clue-Mart.
Re:And thus... by JivanMukti · 2003-12-30 06:50 · Score: 1

I've been in many and caused a few accidents, friend. Not a single one of them was unavoidable by intelligent defensive driving.

So, in other words, you're saying you are not an intelligent defensive driver!
Re:And thus... by ryanwright · 2003-12-30 07:24 · Score: 1

And when the system fails and someone dies, whom do you blame?

How about we just trust people? Despite the number of idiots out there, most people are good, decent, and honest. We don't need governments forcing things like this.

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Re:And thus... by DeputySpade · 2003-12-30 07:29 · Score: 1

You just became my friend, my man. I've been driving hundreds if not thousands of miles a week since I was sixteen (11 years) and if there's one thing I've learned, it's that the one-rule-fits-all approach taught in defensive driving courses is a sure way to get yourself killed.

I drive in all immaginable conditions in all types of passenger vehicles. I've put in my time in the city battling cabs, on the highways of rush hour traffic, on the open highway with nothing but big trucks and deer to keep me amused, backroads of all types, and each of these in every possible weather condition and the one constant is that you never know what you're going to have to do until the situation presents itself. Your car is capable of moving in four directions (five if you count stopping) and if you rule out one of those as an escape route in a dangerous situation, you cut your chances of escaping unharmed.

Here's another situation our inexperienced pal might want to consider. This happens more often than you might think. I drive a rear wheel drive car. I was leaving a gas station situated near a curve on a four lane (two each way) undivided highway frequented by semis hauling steel. The conditions were eighth-mile visibility due to falling snow with several inches on the road. I began to pull out slowly in order to keep traction. Semi appeared around the curve.

Choice one: stop where I am, hope the truck can swerve (not likely, it's got 15 tons of steel on it with a hell of a lot of inertia). Needless to say, it's not going to stop.

Choice two: slow down and become stuck in place when I lose momentum. See choice one.

Choice three: put the hammer down, get the wheels spinning, push the tach to about 4500 RPM and the speedo to about 100, hold it until I'm clear of the truck's lane, bring it down to 50 MPH then cut the wheel. Once the car starts to turn, tap the brakes to spin into my lane, then hammer down again to get enough speed that if a truck comes the other way it doesn't wipe me out from behind.

You can guess which option I chose by using context clues. Namely the fact that I'm not a grease spot on a leather seat right now. If my car was trying to guess what I was up to it would have thought I was doing between fifty and a hundred in a 45 MPH zone for nearly a minute.

There are way too many situations to say that one strategy will always keep you alive. If you don't know what all your options are, and when (and how) to use the appropriately, you will not survive. I've got driving horror stories enough to fill a book. Some times the way to safety was to swerve. Sometimes to stop. Sometimes to ballance slowing and accelerating to stay in a very small pocket. Sometimes it has even been to shut the engine off entirely. No automated system could ever react appropriately in all situations. The only way I'm going to stay alive is if I'm the one in charge.

All that said, there is yet another thing that I'll be damned if someone is going to take away from me and that's the ability to put it to the floor to get away from someone who is _not_ the police. Ever been in a car chase where someone wanted to do you bodily harm and only your ability to go like a bat out of hell has kept you in one piece? I have. I used to work in Gary, IN. I've driven through strike lines at the steel mill. I've been chased out of the ghetto. Now I work in Chicago and drive through some _nice_ (note the sarcasm) neighborhoods. I've had rednecks want to beat me down in a town of 400 people. It's happened more times that I would like to admit.

In my oppinion, the answer to preventing deadly police chases is to not engage in them. Use helicopters, use tracking devices, take your time and use your head. Don't pursue someone who's willing to risk the lives of civilians with their stupidity. The way to stop speeding is to get rid of speed limits where they don't make sense, and enforce them where they do. Of course, that doesn't make for a fancy headline so it will never happen.

--

This space intentionally left blank
Re:And thus... by ckaminski · 2003-12-30 07:40 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Touche! :-)
Re:And thus... by riqnevala · 2003-12-30 07:48 · Score: 1

I agree, and there is a reason for those red lights on the rear of the car... Brakes don't have to be stepped on violently, but merely touched lightly. It is better to take someone bumbing into your tail than to have a race with the merging car.
However, I also must admit that going past speedlimit is sometimes the saviour.
Note: I drive in very easy and light traffic, though sometimes it is very slippery around here.

--
love slashdot. populate it. use it. abuse it. hate it. kill it. miss it. stop following links, they only kill servers.
Re:And thus... by mark-t · 2003-12-30 07:57 · Score: 1

You say you had to exceed the speed limit to prevent accidents...
But the bottom line is that a slower moving vehicle is less likely to kill someone. I'd rather be in an accident in a vehicle moving slowly than take a chance on guessing wrong that exceeding the speed limit would avoid accidents altogether. Ths cost of being wrong is just too high. Cars can be replaced, people can't.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:04 · Score: 0

What, are you undergoing a rock shortage that I don't know about?

Anyway, it is possible, believe it or not, that there are other places in the world besides England.

Maybe if I put it in a way you can understand... would a runaway *ahem* "lorry" going downhill have a speed limiter that'll save your ass?
Re:And thus... by Eivind · 2003-12-30 08:06 · Score: 1
True. There exist some, extremely rare (by your own admittance) situations where rapidly accelerating is your best chance.
However, this argument is extremely weak, for a multitude of reasons, starting with:
- A speed-limiter doesn't limit acceleration, it limits *speed* (duh!). There's very few situations where accelerating from say 80 mph is a reasonable way out of a tricky situation. (most of the situations where acclerating migth be the answer are low-speed situations.)
- There are almost certainly many more situations in which you'll be saved by *not* having to meet the neighbours kid in 100+ mph. The existence of situations where speed-limiters are harmful is not sufficient to proove thei're bad: you must also show that those situations are more common (and/or more serious) than those situations in which speed-limiters are beneficial.
Re:And thus... by plierhead · 2003-12-30 08:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Both your post and your "new friend's" post make it fairly obvious you are still youngsters who suffer from the delusion that you are epxerts and everyone else on the roads is a dick. You probably have Metallica blaring from your speakers most of the time, lank greasy hair and a dog with a studded collar barking in the back.
Strangely, this really will pass once you reach more mature years. Perhaps mid-30s, thats when it came for me. Up until then I too was convinced that accelerating my way out of situations was a vital - and frequently used - defensive driving strategy. Strangely enough, after having kids and suddenly having to really think about safety for others in my car, not just me, I adopted a whole new (and much slower) way of driving. Since then, I have never - not once - had to speed up to get out of a dangerous situation. Ad mittedly I don't spend much time driving through neighbourhoods of rampaging out-of-control rednecks as you seem to (WHY ??).
I accept that speeding up to exit a bad situation is a valid option that I might use again one day. But personally, I'd be prepared to let the cops have their tractor beam to stop the shithead who is screaming at 100mph through the street where I live and where kids play, if the downside was that theoretically they might turn it on me one day (I agree with you though that I don't want any AI in my car making that decision).

--
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:15 · Score: 0

Last night I had to stomp the accelerator and shoot up from 55 to 70 to avoid an idiot that decided "merging" at a yield sign meant "pulling into uncoming traffic without looking". Slowing down was not an option thanks to the moron tailgaiting me.
You're a fucking meat-head. Slowing was not an option because of the guy tail-gating you. At 55, the worst that could happen would be a shunt in your arse (no, not like the one your boyfriend gives you each evening). Your lovely cherry-red datsun would get a dent in it. Boo hooo.
So instead you floor your accelerator, probably while you're still looking in the rearview mirror. Because who cares of someone in front of you - like a pedestrian - gets hit.
I'd guess from the smart arse tone of your post, and the general fucking stupidity of your driving, and the number of stupid situations you get yourself into (yeah, we know, its aslways them, never you), that you're probably had your license for about 5 or 6 years, and you feel an almost overpowering feeling of righteousness every time you get in your car.
Let me see - I bet you think you're probably in the top 10% of drivers on the roads, but you've never done a defensive driving course, right?
Re:And thus... by jesterzog · 2003-12-30 08:17 · Score: 1

I regularly have to speed up to get away from psychopathic tail-gaiting rigs, pickups, and SUVs that don't appreciate you doing the speed limit on the open highway.

The defensive driving technique that I was taught for being tailgated is to increase the distance between yourself and the car in front of you. This gives you a larger space to slow down in if there's something up ahead, which (in theory) should also give the person behind you more time to react. In my own experience, increasing this distance just gets them more annoyed at you, so I try to juet let them past whenever possible.

In the unusual cases where I can't pull over or let them pass somehow by changing lanes, my preferred method is to slow right down to a speed where I think it's safe for them to be following me at that distance... which can really irritate them but at least it's safer.
Re:And thus... by Shakrai · 2003-12-30 08:31 · Score: 1

In short - when you're a little older, you'll realize that "defensive driving" is a good way to get somebody killed in some fairly common situations.
Actually defensive driving will never get anybody killed or injured. Defensive driving (as I've always heard it defined, time after time -- I work for an Insurance Agency and we host classes for our clients) is merely looking at the situations around you to see what could go wrong.
I.e: If that idiot cuts me off what's my best way out of that situation?
Defensive driving implies looking at the other cars/objects around you and having the situational awareness (i.e: is somebody next to me in the left lane?) to figure out the best way to get out of a bad situation. The "best way" could be going onto the shoulder, speeding up, slowing down, swerving into the left lane, or any number of methods to avoid an accident should something go wrong.
Of course it sounds more complicated then that when you take the six hour long class but that's basically what it boils down to. Scan the roadway, look for potential problems and have a plan of action figured out ahead of time to deal with said problems should they occur. After watching at least a dozen defensive driving courses I do this as a matter of course when I drive -- I don't even think about it anymore.
Granted I think the situation where speeding up will avoid an accident is rare -- but it's possible -- and there's nothing in any defensive driving class I've ever seen that tells you not to ever speed up to avoid trouble. I think everybody should take these classes -- if you don't agree with the driving methods then the money you save on Insurance (10% off liability and collision coverage in my state) should be incentive enough.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:And thus... by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-12-30 08:31 · Score: 1

Except that, in the UK at least, many areas are 20 or 30pmh limits. If the limiter isn't fixed at 70 (which would cause problems anyway, nobody really drives at 70 on a UK motorway - 80 to 90 is more common) and changes depending ont he local limit (not that hard to do) then even if you can accelerate quickly, you'll still hit the peg and may not be going fast enough to avoid the problem.
Re:And thus... by DeputySpade · 2003-12-30 08:33 · Score: 1

Heh. Yeah. That's what I was taught, too. And I drive extensively in the Chicago area. You know what happens on the Dan Ryan when you increase your following distance to compensate for a tailgater? Some asshole takes the gap in front of you so now you have a tailgater _AND_ you yourself are tailgating. The situation does not improve. :( It's a shame I don't have an "obliterate" button on my dash for vaporizing the jerks who pull that stunt. Rockets from under the bumper aren't good enough. They would leave debris for me to run over. I need full scale vaporization.

--

This space intentionally left blank
Re:And thus... by Katharine · 2003-12-30 08:48 · Score: 1

Imagine this scenario: You live in a rural area, the local paramedics are volunteers who have to get to the ambulance and then get to you. The hospital is miles from your house. Your child or spouse or parent suffers a serious injury in an accident, and you have to get them to the hospital right away. You might reasonably decide to put your injured family member in the car and drive to the hospital as fast as you can. There's no traffic and you know the road . . . how would you feel about a device that kept your car from exceeding the speed limit?
Re:And thus... by diablobynight · 2003-12-30 09:19 · Score: 1

Sir everything you mentioned is invalid. I do live in a rural area, but volunteer paramedics stay at the station for their shift, they don't drive to the station and then to you. And if they do, their still not allowed to speed. Also your not allowed to race to the hospital simply because you feel you know the road and it's empty, do you have sirens on your car, are you sure a child or a dear won't jump out in front of you. And your hurry to the hospital could result in another child needing to go there. Even police are not supposed to speed in most cases, unless they have full lights and sirens.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:And thus... by diablobynight · 2003-12-30 09:26 · Score: 1

>1) You are out in the countryside for a picnic with your family. Your child trips and smashes her head .... Maybe Darwinism should explain this, if your daughter is that clumsy, than, I wouldn't trust the people that she got those genes from to go flying down the road at whatever speed they like to insure their daughters safety while probably running over two more children in the process

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:32 · Score: 0

Wow, you're a real cunt. I guess accidents never happened to you.
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:36 · Score: 0

I do live in a rural area

And BOY, does it show!

And if they do, their [they're] still not allowed to speed. Also your [you're] not allowed to race to the hospital simply because you feel you know the road and it's empty [.], do you have sirens on your car[?], are you sure a child or a dear [deer, fuck you're an imbecile] won't jump out in front of you [?].

I suggest you stay in your rural area and learn to read, you inbred hick.
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:41 · Score: 0

However, if EVERYONE has a habit of tappping their brakes and flashing their brake lights needlessly, like in my elderly dominated neighborhood, tapping your brakes WILL NOT GET A TAILGATER TO BACK OFF. They are inured to such behavior.
Re:And thus... by xA40D · 2003-12-30 09:47 · Score: 1

England is working on a remote control for cars...

What a damn stoopid idea. I mean when we all have personal jet-packs, the police will be left with all this useless technology. We should develop remote control chips for people... Much more cost effective... Indeed don't see people being obsoleted by robotic consumers for at least 100 years. It should also help at election time to prevent voter apathy, and people from voting for the wrong party.

--
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
Re:And thus... by DunbarTheInept · 2003-12-30 10:11 · Score: 1

My mother used to have one of those pushbutton transmission cars in the '60s. She had discovered that if she tried pushing the "reverse" button when the car was rolling forward, there was a mechanical safety to prevent the switch from going all the way in and engaging - BUT the white taillights that indicate reverse gear is engaged were triggered by that switch, NOT by actually being in reverse. So if she pushed the button in partway while driving down the road, the reverse lights would come on but she'd stay in "drive" gear.

I wasn't born yet at the time so I didn't see it, but she said this was a *great* way to make tailgaters slam on their brakes *hard*.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:And thus... by modecx · 2003-12-30 10:15 · Score: 1

In short - when you're a little older, you'll realize that "defensive driving" is a good way to get somebody killed in some fairly common situations.

You know what they say: The best defense is good offense. ;)

And, boy, does that attitude ever prove helpful whilst dealing with the white Minivans and Volvo Station-wagons toting the kids to soccer practice.

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Re:And thus... by DeputySpade · 2003-12-30 10:26 · Score: 1

I'm guessing you have not been in your fair share of accidents. The kinds of accidents you would choose to involve yourself in are still lethal, enough, or at best a good way to ruin vast chunks of your life. The odds of having a traffic accident at the posted speed limit (in most places) and having a normal day the next day are nearly zero. The difference in the chance for, or type of injury does not change substantially with a ten to fifteen MPH speed difference unless you are talking speeds under five MPH and no seat belts. If that's the case, you deserve what you get. In most cases, a crash at the 35 MPH posted speed limit will not be significantly less life changing than a crash at 45 MPH. That being the case, if you see a way to avoid the crash, you avoid the damned crash. There's too much at stake any time you let two vehicles attempt to occupy the same physical space.

For example, you may be willing to take the hit, but what if the car that hits you contains an unbuckled child and you allow the accident to happen rather than take an evasive action because you are opposed to that action on principle? Whatever action prevents an accident from occuring is the right action, always.

--

This space intentionally left blank
Re:And thus... by Katharine · 2003-12-30 10:49 · Score: 1

Your rural area (and its paramedics) is better than my folks' rural area, I guess.

Obviously, someone rushing to the hospital would still drive carefully even if they were exceeding the speed limit. It can be done.
Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 10:52 · Score: 0

"Now here's a teaser... "curing" tailgaters with a tap on the brakes is a good way to get road-raged upon."

It's a million times better than getting rear-ended at the next stop and having get out of your car by law to exchange insurance, and subsequently getting beat-up by the driver because he's already the type of asshole that would do such a thing anyway.
Re:And thus... by DeputySpade · 2003-12-30 10:55 · Score: 1

You know what? An awful lot of the other people on the road _ARE_ dicks. You can tell which ones are, and which ones aren't. You can spot them a mile (or more, litterally) away. You can tell who's going to try to fit in the gap between you and the car in front of you and who is not. You can tell when it is safer to close that gap up a bit and not give them the chance than to let them in. Am I an expert driver? Well, I don't know. How does one rate that? I've gotten out of some seriously bad situations. Situations that left me shaking and jittery for at least a day. I've kept my car on the road on ice and snow against all odds. I've been in cars with others who were not able to do so. I, too, drive with wife and kids in the car and anything that prevents anyone else's car from making contact with mine is justified in my book. I spend about a thousand hours a year in my car. on average. Used to be a lot more, but I commute by train a lot now. I've been doing so for eleven years. I've driven through blizards, ice storms, rain, fog so thick you couldn't see the end of your hood... you name it. I drove an RV through a tornado on a road trip through Kentucky with the wife and kids asleep in back. I've had semis nearly run me off the road. I've been driving down the highway minding my own business and suddenly there's a Cadillac Eldorado sideways in my lane about 20' in front of me. I've been around the block once or twice and seen some shit. I've come out of more ugly situations that should have left me dead than any one should ever have to deal with.

It may very well be that in driving your cute little kids around your cute little neighborhood in your cute little minivan you don't find yourself in the wide variety of situations others do. If that's the case, GREAT! It sounds like you wouldn't handle them very well anyway, so both you and the roads I travel are safer for it. Those of us who are out here doing it for hours a day every day know that there are too many situations to sit and make a blanket statement about how to deal with them all.

As for your insanely accurate intuition:

0 for 3, and if you grew up the only "city-slicker" computer nerd in a town where the one and only black kid got a cross burned in his yard more than once, you'd probably understand. Out-of-control rednecks? Yeah. Absolutely. Willing to kill, or at least hospitalize someone for being different? Yup. Likely to catch my ass? nope. not a chance. Not a single one of those hicks could keep up on a winding gravel road. :D

The 400cid Trans-Am that I built went a long way to keeping me alive. It could outrun any pickup truck out there. :D Of course, this was before the ford lightening. Real shame when that car got hit by a train. Of course, that's just yet another freakish thing I survived but shouldn't have.

--

This space intentionally left blank
Re:And thus... by Datenshi · 2003-12-30 11:05 · Score: 1

Well, ok, ad homenim attacks are all well and good, BUT there is a good point to be made... If you are driving on raods that are very over crowded (Washington, D.C. is my local example) there is no way to drive safely without ocasionally and suddenly accelerating. I drive at/under the speed limit due to some unfortunate experiences that my friends have had with the local peace officers, and consider myself a passable driver. When you are dealing with combination entrance/exit ramps that are all of 200 feet long with a constant stream of cars coming off and onto them, you have to accelerate to get into place safely. There is just no other way to do it, other than miss your exit. That said, I don't think that speed limiters (I would say at 80mph) would be a bad idea... but acceleration is not antithetical to safe driving.
Re:And thus... by Mad+Marlin · 2003-12-30 12:19 · Score: 1

It will allow you full acceleration and power anytime you want it for a maximum of 20 seconds (should be plenty for emergency situations), then it will throttle you back and reduce speed to the regular limit in the chip and wouldn't allow full acceleration again for 2 minutes after.
And what if I have a valid reason to exceed the posted speed limit for longer than 20 seconds? As an example, my father was rushed to the hospital by his father when he was a kid, after he got his big toe cut off, at around 100-mph the whole trip. With your contraption, he could have bled to death on the way there.

--
Best Slashdot comment ever
Re:And thus... by BiggerIsBetter · 2003-12-30 13:44 · Score: 1

Like many ex-hoons/ex-racers/ex-ricers ;-) I can easily travel faster than the traffic flow when subject to the same speed limits. Some countries have corners, and some folks think a corner means hit the brakes and crawl around it then nail it back to cruising speed for the next straight. I don't, and so travel the same ground faster than grandma. These are the same tools who drive at 92-95 kmh in a 100 kmh zone and accelerate to 120 as you overtake them.

Enforcing a physical 100 kmh limit (for example) would result in every one travelling at 85. And lots more head-on accidents while people get used to the idea of driving at the lowest common denominator.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:And thus... by KamuSan · 2003-12-30 19:08 · Score: 1

The reason I said that didn't have anything to do with whether it's understandable, or even right, but just that it destroys the believe in a common Europe and that it creates even more distance between the general population and the people who make up the rules.
Re:And thus... by Glonoinha · 2003-12-31 02:24 · Score: 1

Here is the big problem with that - just as my example showed, by and large the biggest source of what the world perceives as 'bugs' in software are not really bugs at all - they are instances where the developer had not anticipated a certain senario and didn't code to handle it.

Speed limiters sound great, until you realize they were developed by people that have no clue about how the real world operates and didn't take into account how to handle even the simplest of exception cases. The big problem with that is - a fatal exception error in this case isn't a blue screen, it is a dead person.

Just a thought : maybe the Police can spend less time worrying about people that drive 70mph on the freeway and do something about the drug dealers in high schools, the traffic in white slavery, and .. I dunno .. maybe that whole terrorism thing?

--
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Re:And thus... by uradu · 2003-12-31 03:07 · Score: 1

> just that it destroys the believe in a common Europe

I know what you mean, and I certainly don't disagree. But to expect perfection or even adequacy from any political process or entity is not learning anything from the past. One can only hope that in the long term the sum of all positive contributions outweighs the sum of all negative ones.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the EU is currently still run by old-time politicians that are still shackled by their nationalistic roots and don't necessarily "get" the pan-European spirit. I think younger generations, people that are now in their teens, twenties and thirties do mostly have a very different outlook on Europe, and once they enter the political machinery they will make a difference. I certainly hope so anyway. Amongst online Europeans that also speak English I definitely detect a sense of greater identity beyond the national boundaries. Within the next ten to thirty years these people could contribute to big changes in how Europe views and governs itself.
Re:And thus... by DeputySpade · 2003-12-31 03:42 · Score: 1

I've already taken them several times at the request of the DoT. :D Of course, that was ten years ago when I was admittedly much more of an idiot than I am now.(I hope)

Defensive driving courses can be boiled down to two sentances:

1) pay attention to everything you can see (if this isn't common sense by now, we're all in trouble)

2) if it looks like something "bad" is going to happen, slow down.

That's it. That's defensive driving in a nutshell. Unfortunately, it only works if everyone is doing it, or if nothing ever happens that you couldn't see in advance.

--

This space intentionally left blank
Re:And thus... by Shakrai · 2003-12-31 03:57 · Score: 1

2) if it looks like something "bad" is going to happen, slow down
Actually I think you either weren't paying attention or the classes were different where you took them. The summary of the classes I've seen is "If it looks like something bad is going to happen leave yourself an out and have a plan ahead of time." Of course the majority of the time common sense tells you that it's easier to have an out of a bad situation if you aren't going as fast -- thus slowing down is a logical response.
Unfortunately, it only works if everyone is doing it, or if nothing ever happens that you couldn't see in advance
Actually it works regardless of if everybody else is doing it or not. Defensive driving has saved me from three different accidents that I can recall off the top of my head -- two would have been low speed and probably not very serious, but the other one would have been a head-on at about 55mph. I am at the point where I drive defensively without even thinking about it -- it was only after the fact that I realized I had a prearranged "escape" from the aforementioned situations.
While I'd agree that you can't possibly see everything in advance, you can foresee enough problems ("What if this idiot who doesn't seem to be looking at me run's that stop sign?") to avoid a lot of potential accidents.
My original point being that I take exception to the thought that Defensive Driving courses are "worthless" or a "bad thing". It has saved my bacon more then once.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:And thus... by DeputySpade · 2003-12-31 04:08 · Score: 1

What? It's better to get into a traffic accident? *sheesh* What is this world coming to? You know, in the situation he's talking about the prize for this kind of stupidity isn't a scratched bumper and hurt feelings. It can be a mangled body, a car that catches fire (rear end of the car is the absolute worst place to take an impact of this magnitude. Many cars *COUGH*MUSTANG*COUGH* gush fuel from the slighest tap in this area.) Any rear wheel drive car risks fishtailing into the next lane and causing further problems for people who have nothing to do with your dumb decision if the impact isn't perfectly square. A head-on or side impact collision is likely to give you whiplash. A rear-ender can just snap your neck and leave you dead. Believe me. It happened to a friend of mine. When the car stops moving forward suddenly, you hit the seatbelt and stretch it to lose energy. When the car suddenly lurches forward, your first impact with the car is from the seat hitting you. A lot of cars don't have proper headrests, or they don't work well, or they're misadjusted. head moves backward at 90 degrees to the spine which is held in place by the seat, and *SNAP* welcome to your wheelchair if you're lucky. I just hope you don't end up in front of me because I don't want to live with that on my conciense if you jam the brakes to give some guy who doesn't know how to merge the right of way.

--

This space intentionally left blank

Of course this will be secure? by bunyip · 2003-12-30 00:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Am I the only one wondering how long before there's an O'Reilly book on how to hack this? What animal would they put on the cover?

I can think of a couple of hacks to do:
1) Disable it
2) Stop other people's cars

Any other thoughts?

Re:Of course this will be secure? by AKnightCowboy · 2003-12-30 00:07 · Score: 1

Am I the only one wondering how long before there's an O'Reilly book on how to hack this? What animal would they put on the cover?
Admiral Ackbar. "It's a [speed] Trap". Too bad this wasn't on Fark.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:07 · Score: 0

I propose the cover be a dog running with a broken leash.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by sempf · 2003-12-30 00:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Phil Agre from UCLA has an article about this at http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/car.html. As he puts it: 'Imagine the consequences as your car goes on the Internet. We're used to viruses in our desktop computers and we've heard about viruses in our palmtops. Next we'll have viruses in our cars, and then we'll have them in our pacemakers. Wireless communications is especially asking for it, and a public-spirited lawyer once mailed me a package of documents from a California Air Resources Board plan to equip all new cars with a device that would upload the car's identification number and emissions equipment status in plaintext whenever it was pinged by a roadside transponder. Wrong!'

--
/usr/bin/grep -i -E meaning life.txt
Re:Of course this will be secure? by tommck · 2003-12-30 00:29 · Score: 4, Funny

It would be pretty funny... You seem some motorhead football jock pull up in his Mustang GT revving his engine at the stop light... You rev your whiny electric car to egg him on... he laughs... You point your little "zapper" at him and take off... He barely gets up to 20 MPH as you leave him in your non-polluting dust... :-)

"WHO GETS THE CHICKS NOW, BE-OTCH!?"

Oh yeah... uh, he does...

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by JaredOfEuropa · 2003-12-30 00:31 · Score: 2, Funny

I can think of a couple of hacks to do:
1) Disable it
2) Stop other people's cars

Yes: Finally we give the true meaning to the word "war driving"! I always though that the word is a poor descriptor for the activity of finding WiFi spots.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:42 · Score: 0

Or maybe even bring the country to a standstill with a while loop.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by koekepeer · 2003-12-30 00:42 · Score: 1

it reminds me of the "if your computer were a car" analogy that was popular some years ago.

if it weren't such a serious issue it'd be funny...
Re:Of course this will be secure? by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 00:43 · Score: 1

Am I the only one wondering how long before there's an O'Reilly book on how to hack this?

I'll bet parts without this feature will be available through the dealership as part of a "police intercept" package. You don't think they'll have the same stuff installed in cruisers do you? Kind of like NJ mandating "smart guns" to protect the police but then exempting them from the mandate.

OTOH, there's always the low-tech way, find a non EFI diesel - no computer, no ignition system, no "tractor beam"

--
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Re:Of course this will be secure? by spectrokid · 2003-12-30 01:39 · Score: 1

Carjacking!!!!!
I want one!!! Drive behind that nice Mercedes, push the Red button and get your imitation gun out.

--
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Sesostris+III · 2003-12-30 02:01 · Score: 1

Please! Software will be held as firmware (as software already in cars is). Software updates (if any) would be flashed by the garage). I'm sure that software in the car of the future will be as immune from viruses as the software currently in cars. (Or, to give possibly a better example, mobile phones - how many mobile phone viruses are there? None that I am aware of, and this isn't because they are isolated from the internet!)

--
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:10 · Score: 0

I swear slashdot has had articles about phones being killed due to malicious code. It may not be a virus, but you have been able to kill them in the past.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:16 · Score: 0

It's 2 words or a 'phrase', moron.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:33 · Score: 0

Ahh, I'd love this ! ... the next time someone tailgates me I'll shut them off and watch them recede in the rearview mirror. Somewhat risky, but less so than straight out shooting them.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:00 · Score: 0

Your little zapper won't be very effective on my 1967 Chevelle SS, though.

But you were right about two things, though. I did play football in high school & I don't have a problem getting chicks.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Avihson · 2003-12-30 03:09 · Score: 1

The firmware in the linksys wireless router is remotely flashable. It is disabled by default, but the option is there.

The present software in cars is accessed by direct link, not by a remote connection.

Anything that can be remotely accessed can be remotely exploited, it is just a matter of time.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by cloudmaster · 2003-12-30 03:50 · Score: 1

I feel compelled to point out that the average "football jock" is not smart enough to be a "motorhead". In fact, most of the "football jocks" I've known to drive mustangs are driving the V6 variety, which fits in well with the poser attitude. "My car looks like a fast car, but is really a cheap econobox". Count the tailpipes - 1 pipe = cheap mustang.

Side Note: I'm a geek. I'm a motorhead (but hate NASCAR). I think that football is near the top of the list of stupid sports, in that it's really not much more fun to watch than golf or baseball. It's like hockey with artificially inflated scores (let's give them 6 points for scoring one goal!) and no fights. :)
Re:Of course this will be secure? by the_mad_poster · 2003-12-30 03:50 · Score: 1

I have a Mustang GT and I don't get chicks. Where are my chicks? I WANT CHICKS!

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Of course this will be secure? by zarr · 2003-12-30 05:00 · Score: 1

how many mobile phone viruses are there? None that I am aware of

Viruses (virii?) are not your only worry: How to crash a phone by SMS
Re:Of course this will be secure? by sempf · 2003-12-30 05:28 · Score: 1

If I can call OnStar when my Engine light is flashing and they can tell me that my gas cap is loose, and be right, then the system is hackable. Remember, I'm not talking about rooting the car, I'm just talking about getting somewhere you aren't supposed to be.

--
/usr/bin/grep -i -E meaning life.txt
Re:Of course this will be secure? by mrtroy · 2003-12-30 05:45 · Score: 1

"little zapper"
"1967 Chevelle SS"
" don't have a problem getting chicks"
The difference between you and I my friend, is that I am able to keep chicks.
But you keep making up for you inadequate size with more horsepower...
;) (all in good fun)

--
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Re:Of course this will be secure? by mrtroy · 2003-12-30 05:51 · Score: 1

I think the only people that will gain from this is Detroit thugs.

Now you will be forced to drive slowly through the rough neighborhoods, with the "no standing" signs on the sidewalk

And the thugs can all steal car parts at will...

The only thing saving me right now is I never go below 10mile/hr even if I see a stoplight. A ticket is cheaper than a door or tire.

--
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Re:Of course this will be secure? by ricochet81 · 2003-12-30 07:05 · Score: 0

any other thoughts?

stop the police car chasing me of course

I wish I could underself my stand.

--
Error: Id10t detected
Re:Of course this will be secure? by DeputySpade · 2003-12-30 08:15 · Score: 1

Dude... Chicks don't dig the 4.6L mod motor. Chicks dig the LS1. You should sell that shitbox and get a Trans Am. Chicks dig the curvy F-bod, and it's fast to boot.

--

This space intentionally left blank
Re:Of course this will be secure? by cicho · 2003-12-30 08:16 · Score: 1

What short memory people have.
Viruses can infect cell phones.
And an onboard car computer can crash and lock the passengers inside. (Windows CE, no less).
Short on memory, short on imagination.

--
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:37 · Score: 0

Jesus christ... only in America could a V6 be considered an econo box.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Tjp($)pjT · 2003-12-30 11:49 · Score: 1

Well, I know it was meant to be funny, but electric cars do pollute. The contribute all the normal stuff one expects, they just pollute (well, the vast majority of their pollution) by proxy. Power generation isn't pollution free (well, hydro power is close, but it has its own environmental problems), and when it comes time to swap out all thos batteries in a pure electric or recycle that fuel cell in a co-gen car, there plenty-o pullution to bill that consumers environmental karma account.

Personally I like the quick charge by swapping fluids batteries approach. At least one of those systems all the chemicals of the battery were in solution, and you'd exchange your "discharged" fluids for "charged" ones. Of course our lowest environmental cost power generation is the one with the blackest reputation, and that would be nuke plants. By far and away more radiation is released into the environment through the use of coal for power plant fuel, and more people die processing it per KWH generated. I'd really like to see commercial pebble bed nuke plant design that was standardized or even a CANDU reactor that does not require highly enriched fuel and also fails safe by design. Lots of options so we don't kill off endagered spiecies of birds with wind power gen. stop spawning fish /kill off whole river ecologies with hydro-dams, or create greenhouse gases, acid rain, etc. from coal (or mainly greenhouse gases from gas) generator plants. And solar, unless it is point of use, covers lots of wilderness or desert ecological systems and alters them.

And besides, BE-OTCH I am one of those Mustang GT drivers who can get out of the way of folks who run lights where current (get the pun ;-) electrics will become some varient of techno-streetpizza art. And in the case of gas burning cars, at least in an accident I won't leek substantial amounts of really nasty hazardous waste ('cept that fairly easy to clean up average half tank-o-gasoline, which may just burn away).

--
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Re:Of course this will be secure? by tommck · 2003-12-30 12:05 · Score: 1

Well, the funny thing is that I actually drive a pretty sweet car myself (2001 BMW 325 Convertible). I just thought a cheesy electric car would be a better emphasis on the story :)

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Of course this will be secure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 17:14 · Score: 0

Put a little V6 into a heavy-ish car designed for a 300+HP V8, and you'll see what I mean. Put it into a British tin can and you've probably got a "performance machine"...
Re:Of course this will be secure? by the_mad_poster · 2003-12-31 02:29 · Score: 1

Actually, chicks dig those pretty-boy ricers I repeatedly cream on the street. You know - the ones that take a Civic Ex and drop $3000 worth of body mods and lights, a big tailpipe and maybe, just maybe, an intake system into the car.

Heh.. I saw a 350hp, street-legal Eclipse GS in Autoweek for $14k though. That'd be a pretty sweet ride with the AWD and all that. A car that light with AWD with that much power would whoop a silly stock WS6 six ways to Sunday any day!

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Of course this will be secure? by DeputySpade · 2003-12-31 04:35 · Score: 1

Well, I would think it would depend entirely on the transmission. The WS6 (assuming the six speed manual with 3.42:1 rear gears) is geared to compensate for its weight and the Ram Air would make the power of the two cars similar at speed (assuming the Eclipse is turbo and all 350hp are not available off-idle.) If the Eclipse is still geared to be a soft riding, automatic shifting, light weight street cruiser it might have a hard time putting that 350 to good use in which case the AWD is nothing but a power drain. If that's the case it's going to come down to the driver. If the Eclipse is geared right, it's going to lay the smack down _HARD_ on the T/A no matter who's driving it. Problem with ricers, though, is that you can never tell if the builder actually thought things through before buying the parts. (Well, that's not entirely true. In most cases you can tell they didn't.)

You know what the funny thing is? I never get to race the rice boys in my T/A or my Charger. They won't take the bait. The only ones I get around here will only try to race me when I'm in my honey's Intrepid. When I go to the dragstrip, they won't even line up with me on test/tune runs. I guess that goes to show what fabulous machines they're driving. :)

But in any case, those aren't chicks. They're high school girls. Stupid kids. You wouldn't want one anyway. They'd be spending the whole night on their cell phones coordinating outfits with their other high school girl friends so that they could all match eachother _AND_ their boyfriends' cars. Real chicks dig the T/A. As my honey says: "They're just sexy cars".

--

This space intentionally left blank
Re:Of course this will be secure? by srmalloy · 2003-12-31 17:40 · Score: 1

Please! Software will be held as firmware (as software already in cars is). Software updates (if any) would be flashed by the garage). I'm sure that software in the car of the future will be as immune from viruses as the software currently in cars.
The software currently in cars is only 'secure' (and the wide availability of 'power' engine-control ROMs shows how easy it is to subvert with physical access) as long as the memory can only be modified if you have physical access to the car. As soon as you allow the software to accept data from outside, you open the door to subversion.

Sweet! by iLL_L0gic · 2003-12-30 00:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Something else to add to my ebay shopping list! Along with my Traffic Light Changer, I'm gonna be all set.

Problems by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ok, ignoring all of the privacy issues that I know other people are going to address... It seems to me like giving any more control other than allowing the police to severely limit the speed of the target vehicle is just asking for all kinds of accidents from another person suddenly taking over control of the car. I think it would also possibly open the police up to civil suits were they to accidentally crash the car or harm any other people or property.

Re:Problems by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2003-12-30 05:29 · Score: 1

The basic problem is far more simple than that. At present, here in the UK, our road traffic laws are determined by two things: political correctness and the need to raise money without putting mainstream taxes up.
Our existing speed limits, and the current usage of speed cameras, have been shown repeatedly not to be in the best interests of road safety. This has been the conclusion of research not only by the pro-motoring groups, but even by the government's own Transport Research Laboratory! They are quite good for raising revenue by the back door, though, in spite of publicly advertised policies that mean they shouldn't any more.
As a further example of this attitude, the UK government just passed legislation that makes driving while on a mobile phone illegal. Except that, while I can now be fined for leaving my engine running (in neutral with handbrake applied) while calling someone inside a building to say I've arrived to pick them up -- not exactly dangerous, methinks -- using a hands-free kit isn't covered, even though it's pretty much as dangerous as a handheld according to all the research (because the distraction is what causes most of the problems, not the lack of a free hand). So it's a daft law. And worse, it's completely unnecessary: dangerous and/or inconsiderate driving was already illegal under existing law, and if it's not dangerous and/or inconsiderate, why should it be illegal anyway?
I have a lot of sympathy for our police service. The traffic officers do a very important job, I've met several (my driving instructor was ex-police, her husband still was) and they would all far rather spend their time making the roads safer than following any fad in political spin for the day. I guess your perspective is more down-to-earth when you're the guy who has to clean up a fatal pile-up, get miles of traffic moving again, and then presumably tell Mrs Jones that her husband won't be coming home because some idiot teenager went joyriding into the back of his car at 70mph on the motorway.
So, I can totally understand that the police want more powers to enforce the rules. Like the legal representatives in a court case, their job is very much to advocate one side of the argument, not to present a balanced perspective that also considers things like privacy and civil liberties. You can't blame them for trying to do their job as effectively as possible; if the balance is wrong, it's the political masters who gave too much power to the police who should be put against the wall.
Of course, a lot of the high-ranking police officers who wade in on subjects like this talk complete trash and are an embarrassment to the front line guys. I find it endlessly amusing that one very senior officer (now a Chief Constable -- the highest rank in our police service -- I believe) constantly goes on about how speeding is dangerous, when not so long ago my local Chief Constable was pulled over by his own traffic officers doing 95 in a 70. It was probably quite safe on the road concerned, but it was illegal nonetheless. And whence cometh the hypocrisy...
The basic problem with the whole idea of speed control is the same as it always has been, though. It is essential for road safety that any driver be 100% in control of their vehicle under normal circumstances. I used to be a very legal driver, sticking pretty religiously to speed limits, although I confess that given the number that have been reduced for no apparent reason recently, I no longer respect any speed limits, but rather judge a safe speed (whether above or below the limit) according to road conditions at the time. However, even in my super-legal phase, I broke the limit on a few occasions, typically a momentary burst of speed to avoid an accident where it was safer to power out of the way than to brake, or on one occasion, when I was transporting someone to hospital. (Incidentally, vehicles acting as an ambulance are, reasonably enough, exempt from speed limits under certain circumstances over here, so although a limiter in my

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Problems by evilmonkey_666 · 2003-12-30 07:55 · Score: 1

Yes, imagine the legal fiasco that would follow if they stopped a car at a very inconvenient place such as... I don't know, a railway crossing? :)

--

- PS. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R where eliminated.

William Blake and Voltair by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:05 · Score: 0

would die from their shame for what the english government is doing today.

Kill nor the moth nor butterfly
For the last judgement drawneth nigh
He who shall train the horse to war
Shall never pass the pollar bar

Re:William Blake and Voltair by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:50 · Score: 0

They must have had one heck of an ability to foresee the future, because they snuffed it a long long time ago already ...

But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch? by SteWhite · 2003-12-30 00:05 · Score: 1

"But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch and use my speed to go downhill?"

But what if they just disable your clutch? :)

Seriously, if they can stop the car remotely, they can probably do it by taking complete control and just forcing the brakes on.

Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:05 · Score: 0

That's great. The police will get so lazy there that anyone with a slightly older car can make an easy get away.... just like in GTA London... (I have a grip on reality I swear!)

Ahhh... the opportunities! by Dr.+GeneMachine · 2003-12-30 00:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Harden your car against that system... and if the police are on your tail - hack some of the civilian cars behind you to cause a mass carambolage - instant getaway. Hackers heaven! I for one welcome our new remote controlling overlords!

--
This comment does not exist.

Re:Ahhh... the opportunities! by TygerFish · 2003-12-30 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Harden your car against the system...

Essentially, this is one of those things that recapitulates the (old and creaky) truism by the NRA:'...if guns are outlawed,' etc.

If the authorities set up an intrusive technology which gives them the ability to control an ordinary law-abiding citizen's property without any legal process, chances are it will only effect ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

Barring a technology so intimately interwoven into your cars ignition system that your car actually comes apart if you try to remove it, criminals and pranksters will hack the system making the authorities look a lot like keystone cops in situations where it really counts.

You've got to wonder about the people who come up with stuff like this: you imagine guys with sunken cheeks mumbling about power. All of them suffer from a dangerous cramp in their right hands...

--
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Re:Ahhh... the opportunities! by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 01:10 · Score: 1

Harden your car against that system...

How long til TEMPEST kits start appearing in your neighborhood shop - right next to the neon lights and gull wings.

--
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Re:Ahhh... the opportunities! by darien · 2003-12-30 01:19 · Score: 1

criminals and pranksters will hack the system

Car thieves may not have the time to stop and hack the car they've just nicked.
Re:Ahhh... the opportunities! by I8TheWorm · 2003-12-30 02:22 · Score: 1

Barring a technology so intimately interwoven into your cars ignition system that your car actually comes apart if you try to remove it, criminals and pranksters will hack the system making the authorities look a lot like keystone cops in situations where it really counts.

And to aid your arguement, no auto manufacturer would produce cars in that fashion because it wouldn't be cost effective. And no politician would force them to, because the automobile industries PAC money (at least in the US) is a large incentive for politicians to vote in favor of the auto manufacturers.

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:Ahhh... the opportunities! by TomV · 2003-12-30 03:14 · Score: 1

Harden your car against that system

If you're such a mind-bogglingly stupid, naive and incompetent crook as to use your own car, licensed and registered to you, traceable through the DVLA, then you're going to get caught long before the firmware in your car becomes an issue.

You don't use your own car, you nick someone else's and use that.

Yeah right by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2003-12-30 00:06 · Score: 4, Funny

England's police force is lobbying to get a remote-control to stop other cars; this could also be used to limit speeds

Yes, everybody knows UK thieves have enough morals to play nice with the cops and leave the speed limiter/engine killer module in their getaway cars. I mean, it's only fair that the police have a fighting chance ...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Yeah right by mpe · 2003-12-30 00:25 · Score: 1

Yes, everybody knows UK thieves have enough morals to play nice with the cops and leave the speed limiter/engine killer module in their getaway cars.

The same thieves would never get hold of a car stopping device and leave persuing police to negotiate a traffic jam either...
Re:Yeah right by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2003-12-30 00:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Thieves? Hardly. Now, add enough funding, some timers, a FUCKLOAD of power and the right power to the signal.. Think how bad 9/11 hit everyone. Now image a similar disaster, and all cars coming to an instant stop (or 100mph, which might be evn more fun.)

Then after that happens, we'll have another wave of PATRIOT acts, 'terrorism and privacy are bad' FUD, and any rights they left us with taken and replaced by more things like this to be exploited.

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Re:Yeah right by Gumshoe · 2003-12-30 00:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, everybody knows UK thieves have enough morals to play nice with the cops and leave the speed limiter/engine killer module in their getaway cars. I mean, it's only fair that the police have a fighting chance

You have a good point, but the intention of laws and devices such as this, is not to catch thieves. The goal is to intimidate the general populace and to force them (in this case, literally) into behaving how the Government wants.
Re:Yeah right by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-12-30 00:56 · Score: 1

Well, they certainly did after handguns were banned.... :-)
Re:Yeah right by jellomizer · 2003-12-30 01:03 · Score: 0, Interesting

Well this will improve the chance of catching a previously stolen car. But if people want to speed or are planning a heist, or just don't like the idea of people remotely controlling their cars then they are going to disable it. It will probably stop the quick car thieves from stupid kids on drugs or the person who tends to speed.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Yeah right by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-12-30 01:53 · Score: 1

Yup, if you hold the graph upside down, gun crime has halved since Dunblane. Halved I tell you!
Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:30 · Score: 0

"Well this will improve the chance of catching a previously stolen car."

The recovery rate for stolen cars is usually quite bad because of the delay in the car being stolen and actually reported. Stopping a stationary flaming wreck is usually fairly easy.

"But if people want to speed or are planning a heist, or just don't like the idea of people remotely controlling their cars then they are going to disable it."

Duh. Flip it around a bit. Are the technically competent going to be interested in working for the police or the relatively higher earnings offered by disabling these things? Perhaps even creating the boxes to stop certain cars? Does anyone remember unencrypted IR/radio alarm units?

I have very little faith in technological remedies like these because they completely penalise the law-abiding, much in the same way the RIP Bill did. You can be jailed for forgetting a password, which kinda removes the whole 'due process' aspect of law enforcement. It's about creating a climate of fear.

"It will probably stop the quick car thieves from stupid kids on drugs or the person who tends to speed."

It's cartoony stereotypes like that that produce cartoony legislation like this.

Personally I'd support heavy penalties for car theft simply because the insurance rarely replaces the full value of the vehicle and the bother of sorting out transportation in the meantime, but the system is broken when Insurance companies are allowed to change their rates when pre-agreed. Work with the existing laws. Stop inventing new ones to appear all 'cool'.
Re:Yeah right by Jerf · 2003-12-30 02:30 · Score: 1

Looks like our legislative bodies need to go back to nursery school; too many laws they pass involve trying to bell the cat.

Seriously, why not just pass a law making crime illegal? Then all the police can just go home and we'll live in a wonderous utopia. Oh, you say we live in a world where people who are already criminals are, by definition, aren't obeying the law and it's that simple? Well, start walking the walk; you act like criminals will just bend over, but it's not the criminals who have to BOGU.
Re:Yeah right by glesga_kiss · 2003-12-30 05:38 · Score: 1

Well this will improve the chance of catching a previously stolen car.
Hmm, doubt it. Complicated cars with computer systems like this are hard to steal. On the other hand, cheaper cars without it are relatively easy to steal.
Which do you think the joyriders will go for?
Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:38 · Score: 0

"It's cartoony stereotypes like that that produce cartoony legislation like this."

It should be:

It's cartoon-like stereotypes like that which produce cartoon-like legislation like this.

Go back to grammar school, retard.
Re:Yeah right by MrAngryForNoReason · 2003-12-30 09:43 · Score: 1

Now image a similar disaster, and all cars coming to an instant stop

Your main point that this could be easily abused is right, the devices wouldn't kill the cars engines. They would slowly decrease the speed until it was at an acceptable level. The devices would be limiting speed in the same way chips in cars limit maximum speed at the moment, they limit the engine. It would be foolish and incredibly dangerous to design it to slam the brakes on when you pressed a button.
Re:Yeah right by MrAngryForNoReason · 2003-12-30 09:47 · Score: 1

Now image a similar disaster, and all cars coming to an instant stop

Although your main point that this could be easily abused is right, your example is highly unlikely .The devices wouldn't kill the cars engines, they would slowly decrease the speed until it was at an acceptable level. Limiting speed in the same way chips in cars limit maximum speed at the moment, they limit the engine. It would be foolish and incredibly dangerous to design it to slam the brakes on when you pressed a button.

The obvious question is.... by Crypto+Gnome · 2003-12-30 00:07 · Score: 1

Is this simply a case of 're-inventing the wheel' (ie given that California has already done something that seems to be the same thing)? ... Sorry, not enough technical detail in the article to really know.

Not that I'm encouraging governments in suchlike pursuits, but wouldn't we all be generally better off if they dropped their "Not Invented Here" attitudes, and came up with some standards and combined research into such methodologies.

Governments in general and as a whole want to infringe on our privacy in the interests of retaining their power/national security. Given their common goals, surely they could do some common reasearch and save us all some money?

Even if all they do is line their own pockets with it.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

I propose a better solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:08 · Score: 0

How about constructing motorways with barricades that popup to stop fleeing suspects. They seem to at least need such devices in California ;)

Yawn! by pxpt · 2003-12-30 00:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't they realise that this is THE THING to hack if you were a car-jacker! Anything that is supposed to be secure and in the public domain WILL be hacked. It will be the innocent public that have to suffer the newer types of criminality that will undoubtably occur with the introduction of this new technology.

Re:Yawn! by sempf · 2003-12-30 00:15 · Score: 1

Of course the hope is that the car jackers (muscle-between-the-ear types that ply their trade via fear) and crackers (script kiddies that are afraid of their own shadow) don't get together to make this kind of arrangement a reality. But it always seems that this does happen somehow when the almighty buck is concerned.

--
/usr/bin/grep -i -E meaning life.txt
Re:Yawn! by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 01:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Don't they realise that this is THE THING to hack if you were a car-jacker! Anything that is supposed to be secure and in the public domain WILL be hacked. It will be the innocent public that have to suffer the newer types of criminality that will undoubtably occur with the introduction of this new technology.

Exactly. George Carlin pointed out years ago that car jackings came about due to car alarms, something like "F***ing yuppies couldn't bear to be without their precious bmw so they stuck an alarm on it, now the crooks just take them at gunpoint." How long til the crooks stop leaving the passengers behind (they could phone the cops and get the car shutdown) and just bring them along for the ride, maybe kill or maim them to keep them quiet.

--
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Re:Yawn! by aurelian · 2003-12-30 01:33 · Score: 1

I doubt most car-jackers want to become hostage-takers. No reason why the presence of the car owner should prevent the police from accessing the speed limiter.
Seems to me this measure would be very effective against car-jacking and similar vehicle theft where there isn't time to interfere with the limiter electronics.
Re:Yawn! by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 01:45 · Score: 1

I doubt most car-jackers want to become hostage-takers. No reason why the presence of the car owner should prevent the police from accessing the speed limiter.

Technically true, but, with car jackers, you're standing on the sidewalk as I'm speeding away, there's nothing preventing a phone call. If I've taken you hostage, do you really think I'm going to let you call anyone?

--
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Re:Yawn! by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 01:49 · Score: 1

I doubt most car-jackers want to become hostage-takers.

I doubt most car-jackers wanted to become armed robbers - I assume they were quite happy stealing cars while they were unattended.

--
One day I'll learn to Use the Preview Button!

--
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Re:Yawn! by SmallFurryCreature · 2003-12-30 01:54 · Score: 1

What use is a car with a locked engine to a carjacker. Ooh I got your car by disabling the engine now watch me sit here. Don't think it will be much of a pursuit.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Re:Yawn! by aurelian · 2003-12-30 01:58 · Score: 1

I suspect a lot of them wouldn't be able to steal a car if it were0 locked and properly secured. There's a certain amount of skill in that. Not much is required to threaten someone with a gun and take their keys.
And actually I think for most criminals the last thing they want is to take a hostage. It dramatically increases the number of things they have to worry about and increases their chances of capture.
Re:Yawn! by ajs318 · 2003-12-30 02:04 · Score: 1

What happens is that when criminals are put in prison, they talk about their various crimes and discuss ways they could have been improved. Put a forger and a smuggler in the same cell, and false paperwork will turn up in the conversation sooner or later. Back on the outside, ideas will find their way into practice. So if a carjacker and a cracker get together, then that may well end up happening.

I've often wondered why they put criminals convicted of different crimes in the same prison, rather than away from people convicted of other crimes, precisely to avoid this sort of thing. And for that matter, why do they allow prisoners to smoke? Surely a non-smoking axe murderer is a better citizen than a smoking axe murderer?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Yawn! by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 02:18 · Score: 1

suspect a lot of them wouldn't be able to steal a car if it were0 locked and properly secured. There's a certain amount of skill in that.

That's only become true in the last few years. Alarms and ignition disablers, both factory and aftermarket, means it now takes quite a bit of knowledge to get the expensive cars. Prior to that it was a trivial exercise. This brings us to point two:

Not much is required to threaten someone with a gun and take their keys.

Exactly, however the risk to both parties increases. Carjacking came about because of the items installed above, alarms and ignition disablers. When people could just drive off with them, they did.

And actually I think for most criminals the last thing they want is to take a hostage.

I believe that too, I think they'd rather just take the car. I'm afraid that the escalation to remote trackers and disablers however will cause an escalation in theft tactics. Now, you can leave them on the street and get away, once these become more common that won't be an option.

I'm not trying to justify theft or say you shouldn't be allowed to protect your stuff. Auto theft is expensive for everyone but I'd rather stop the arms race now before we're driving around with flamethrowers or the like.

--
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Re:Yawn! by I8TheWorm · 2003-12-30 02:24 · Score: 1

Of course it happens! Didn't you see Gone in 60 Seconds?!?!?!?!?

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:Yawn! by Politburo · 2003-12-30 02:50 · Score: 1

George Carlin pointed out years ago that car jackings came about due to car alarms

Perhaps, but the incidence of carjacking is drastically lower than auto theft. It's just that carjackings get play on the evening news, and auto theft doesn't, so we get the sense that there is some sort of 'epidemic' or 'crime wave'. Then you have the 'instill-fear' special report: how to protect you and your family from carjackings, make sure to watch at 11!
Re:Yawn! by kahei · 2003-12-30 03:14 · Score: 1

Why, you're right! People should just _put up_ with having their belongings stolen! Taking measures to protect their stuff is just asking for trouble -- they deserve whatever they get!

--
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Re:Yawn! by TomV · 2003-12-30 03:26 · Score: 1

I'm afraid that the escalation to remote trackers and disablers however will cause an escalation in theft tactics.

True, but ISTM that Supply and Demand will play their inevitable role.

When the alarms and ignition disablers went in, the 'price' of stealing a car increased - if you take a car from a deserted street, it might be hours before the police are called and you'll not face charges of threatening behaviour or armed robbery on top of theft. Currently, you face the threat or armed robbery charges, the odds are the jacked driver will call the police straight away, so the odds of being caught and the sentence *if* you're caught, in other words, the 'price' of stealing the car, increase. As the supply of non-alarmed cars falls with time, I'd imagine the number of potential offenders prepared to pay 'the price' is likely to decrease as that 'price' rises.

Adding remote immobilisers would constitute another 'price' rise in terms of equipment needed, time needed to do the hack, potential for charges of kidnap, the absolute certainty that the police will give an armed kidnap case top priority, which should tend to suppress the demand side - there will always be *some* car theft, let's not kid ourselves. But a measure like this might well decrease the volume somewhat, which (other factors of privacy, or whatever ignored for a moment) can't be a bad thing, surely?
Re:Yawn! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2003-12-30 05:34 · Score: 1

Perhaps, but the incidence of carjacking is drastically lower than auto theft.

For now that may be true, but the balance is certainly shifting. In the UK, I understand that it's now more common for someone to break into a house and steal car keys than it is to break into a car; modern immobilisers and alarm systems make stealing the keys easier. It's also becoming more worthwhile to carjack, and IIRC something like 1,400 carjackings took place last year in the UK alone according to a report I saw the other day.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Yawn! by Lars+T. · 2003-12-30 06:22 · Score: 1

Esp. when the whole point of carjacking is to separate car and driver. And wouldn't taking a hostage with you be kidnapping and get the FBI involved (in the USA)?

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Yawn! by Quikah · 2003-12-30 06:44 · Score: 1

Do you really want to aggravate that axe murderer by taking away his smokes?

--
Q.
Re:Yawn! by TFloore · 2003-12-30 08:41 · Score: 1

Why, you're right! People should just _put up_ with having their belongings stolen! Taking measures to protect their stuff is just asking for trouble -- they deserve whatever they get!

That's not what he said, nor is it what he meant.

The real message here is to think through the consequences of the security change you are making. If you make a car that can only be started with the correct key, as a lot of car security systems work, then the only way to steal a car is to steal the key first. The key is on the body of the driver. Therefore, you turned a simple property crime into an armed confrontation, where instead of losing your car (made-up odds, 1:10,000), you can lose your life trying to protect a damn car key (made-up odds, 1:1,000,000).

Very low odds, but a damned bad result. I'd rather let the insurance replace the car.

Or, more properly, I'd rather have a protection measure that is not defeated by confronting me at gunpoint. *That* is the proper way to take measures to protect your stuff.

Think through the consequences of the changes you are proposing, before doing it.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?

what, me worry? by tuxette · 2003-12-30 00:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is it me or do the police tend to have far less hindsight than everyone else? I mean, call me paranoidette or whatever, but I can already see the following problems:

- If these devices get put in use, sooner or later "everyone" will have one. Or at least relatively easy access to one. Just like police radios. Just like those dingies to control traffic lights. Let the fun begin!

- When "everyone" has this device, thieves could easily use them to stop a cool car and take it.

- The potential for abuse by police officers is high. It's already bad enough that some police officers go around hassling and abusing people just because they don't like their face. Bad cops can stop cars/drivers they suddenly, arbitrarily decided to hate. Another real but underreported problem is police officers stopping women just to rape them; this device would make it a lot easier for them to do it. At the same time, anyone else (people who buy these devices on eBay) could do the same thing.

- Because of the potential for abuse, car owners will carry weapons (guns, pepperspray, whatever) "just in case." You can never be too careful or trusting. Take the rape example above. Before, it would be enough to kick the bastard in the nuts and drive away. Now you have to do him some more serious damage. Things could get messy.

- And just how will police officers avoid ever stopping the wrong car? And will citizens have the right to take action if they are wrongfully stopped?

--
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...

Re:what, me worry? by LordKronos · 2003-12-30 00:23 · Score: 1

Another real but underreported problem is police officers stopping women just to rape them; this device would make it a lot easier for them to do it.

Exactly. Or any type of police assault, for that matter. I've always been told that if you are concerned for your safety when being stopped, just put on your hazards to acknowledge the officer, then slowly drive to a well lit, public location. Good luck doing that.
Re:what, me worry? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2003-12-30 00:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The potential for abuse by police officers is high. It's already bad enough that some police officers go around hassling and abusing people just because they don't like their face. Bad cops can stop cars/drivers they suddenly, arbitrarily decided to hate. "

Why stop them, when with a minor tweak you can force them to do 120mph in a schoolzone? Allowing police to control speed of cars is just allowing them to force us to commit crimes.

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Re:what, me worry? by Epistax · 2003-12-30 00:52 · Score: 1

Is it me or do the police tend to have far less hindsight than everyone else?

Everyone has an infinite amount of hindsight. foresight on the other hand...
Re:what, me worry? by Rostin · 2003-12-30 01:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unfortunately it isn't just you. I don't claim that your objections/warnings aren't valid (mostly). But it seems that every time a story like this comes up, someone gets modded +5 insightful for pointing out problems that were probably discussed in the first meeting held by whoever is or might be working on this system. It is truly ridiculous to imagine that they'd get this thing all worked up, pass a law to require it in every car, and only then consider that a system with the power to stop people's cars may potentially be abused.

Anyway, potential solutions:

- (The first and second objections are basically the same, use by unauthorized people). A lot of people have keyless entry remotes for their car, and I've never heard of one of those being "hacked" to unlock someone's door. It wouldn't be tough to make cars only respond to commands sent along with the proper key. Of course, you then have to have maintained a database of these keys, or perhaps some program to hash information about the car (like the license plate number, or a key transmitted by the car itself) to match key to car, and you encounter security issues there. But I'm told that if you lose the remotes for your car, the dealer can replace them, so somewhere this system already exists and is evidentally considered to be secure enough. If you can't tell, I don't know much about this, and I'm mostly just blabbing. Just saying it is not beyond the realm of imagination that this system could be made secure enough.

- And nothing stops policemen from randomly shooting people, either, so they shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. Oh yeah, except that when they do shoot people, there is a huge inquiry into whether or not it was justified. Some policemen do abuse their power, and maybe giving them new toys will give them even more power to abuse, but this isnt a very convincing argument. Policemen can already stop 99.9% of the people they want to stop just because 99.9% of people will stop when they turn their lights on. I really suspect a system like this would not be used for routine traffic stops (and consequently couldn't be used for malicious activity disguised as a routine traffic stop).

- People will carry more weapons? Come on. Even supposing that people would respond to this danger by arming themselves, which I am not convinced of, you are assuming from the outset that there is a danger to respond to. In other words, common criminals like rapists and thieves will so rountinely be able to stop cars that people will feel the need to carry weapons with them to protect themselves. If it were really that easy, wouldn't they disable the system and go back to the old way of stopping cars before we got to that point? There is just a little too much "conspriracy theory" to this and too little reality for me to be convinced, because you must assume that the government has a far greater interest in being able to control people's cars than it has in protecting people. In any case, who cares if more people do start carrying weapons? Concealed carry laws in the states that have 'em have really done nothing but good.

- See the bit above about remote keyless entry. I think the bigger danger would be people jamming the signal used to stop the car, the result being no car stopped at all. But the system doesn't have to work perfectly. Just frequently enough to be worth the investment. If the police try to stop the car and can't, they shrug and resort to the tactics currently in use, like spike strips, ramming, and so on.
Re:what, me worry? by junklight · 2003-12-30 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

You clearly haven't been at one of those meetings!

You write as if this is being designed by intelligent people who know exactly what they are doing. Have you ever worked somewhere like that? (although I have. the Williams F1 team got pretty close). Certainly not in government or public sector.

This idea will have been devised by police/politicians in conjunction with (if we are really lucky) some consultants who did know what they are talking about but will have been overruled on everything apart from the following exchange:

"We can do this though?"
Consultant: "Yes, but..."
"Well there are always technical problems - thats what we pay guys like you to sort out."
Consultant: "..."
Re:what, me worry? by kfg · 2003-12-30 01:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone has an infinite amount of hindsight.

Oh, if this simple statement were even vaguely true.

KFG
Re:what, me worry? by paRcat · 2003-12-30 01:32 · Score: 1

um...

keyless entry works by 'teaching' the car to recognize the signal from the given remote. It's like an easter egg in your car... do a certain number of things in the right order, the lights flash (or whatever) you press the button on the remote, the car ACKs, and you're set. It's secure because it's done specifically for each remote.

Please research your ideas before writing them down.
Re:what, me worry? by I8TheWorm · 2003-12-30 02:34 · Score: 1

Keyless entry systems also use RKE, while the typical garage door opener has no encryption. Why bother with cracking RKE when all you need is a slim jim or a rock?

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:what, me worry? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

"someone gets modded +5 insightful for pointing out problems that were probably discussed in the first meeting held by whoever is or might be working on this system."

Seriously, after the Diebold debacle, you still think that a government tech contract will be foolproof?

"A lot of people have keyless entry remotes for their car, and I've never heard of one of those being "hacked" to unlock someone's door."

Before shifting algorithms and encryption, they were routinely hacked with learning remotes and loggers. I think it took a couple of years before the technology had advanced to it's current state. However, it's usually considered to be quicker to slam the window with a sparkplug which is horrendously low-tech, but it works.

We aren't necessarily talking about something which is an enabling technology for car thieves, but instead creating a possible exploit. Seriously, I think you're playing devil's advocate, but the DMCA was created as a threat against people circumventing security, and some companies have tried to use this as a method of securing their faulty systems. This is a whole load of arse as an idea.

"Some policemen do abuse their power, and maybe giving them new toys will give them even more power to abuse, but this isnt a very convincing argument."

Go take a look at the number of people released from UK prisons over wrongful convictions. West Midlands serious crimes squad, for example. We still have people dying in custody over here. On the whole, the average copper is okay (I'm related to a couple), but it takes one or two to create a climate of complete distrust.

Recently one of the Soham liason officers was brought up on charges of peadophile porn.

"Even supposing that people would respond to this danger by arming themselves"

We don't have the option. Having something that can be considered a 'weapon' is grounds for immediate arrest.

"There is just a little too much "conspriracy theory" to this and too little reality for me to be convinced, because you must assume that the government has a far greater interest in being able to control people's cars than it has in protecting people."

Controlling people or protecting people? You consider that governments illegally bomb civilians because they want to protect the folks back home? Do governments fear donkeys as a delivery system, or possible strangleholds on the natural resources that they consume?

Government is an organ for extending national interests, not protecting people; otherwise you'd see some really coherent healthcare systems put in place that could handle urban tuberculosis outbreaks.

The basic point is that they're trying to introduce a number of ludicrous 'security' polices in the UK that could drag us back to the 80's when we did our hysterical 'terrorist' checks. When the police were used as a method of social moderation rather than keeping the peace, the British rioted; personally I'd rather not see that again because it was ludicrous, but we know a police state when one is being assembled.

There has been a recent spate of violent robberies (with firearms) in my area of the UK; we're bloody rural...rather than try to increase police coverage (cars are administered from 20 miles away), they're trying to increase the number of cameras. Cameras are run by private concerns under the control of the council, and they're usually playing it fast and loose with regard to the law themselves. Tell me, who do you get arrested when a council breaks the law? What happens when a government breaks international law?

You're right when you suggest that this could be conspiracy theory territory, but you're going to need to look into the UK to see the background behind this particular civil nightmare.

It's probably never going to come to fruition, as stopping a car under power is going to have to meet a number of conditions, but the fact that it's been asked for is an indicator of police thinking.
Re:what, me worry? by Jerf · 2003-12-30 02:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
But it seems that every time a story like this comes up, someone gets modded +5 insightful for pointing out problems that were probably discussed in the first meeting held by whoever is or might be working on this system. It is truly ridiculous to imagine that they'd get this thing all worked up, pass a law to require it in every car, and only then consider that a system with the power to stop people's cars may potentially be abused.

You sound like you're still in school; if you aren't then you really ought to know better. This is a political discussion, not a technological discussion. Frequently, the engineers will put together a disaster scenario, or something complicated like "It will work as long as we...", and the other political side will hire engineers with just as many credentials to say that "Live would be bliss if only we had this system!" Those engineers are generally wrong or even lying, but through the wonders of cognitive dissonance and human psychology will eventually convince themselves that their rosy view is correct.

Generally, both reports are then tossed out, the politicians do whatever the hell they feel like it, and, best of all, even after the system fails catestrophically, the either
1. Hire the engineers who said it would be great to "fix" it
2. Try to sue the negative engineers for some reason ("you should have stopped us"), and whatever else happens,...
3. actively resist learning from the experience about which engineers should be trusted in the future
Or some combination thereof. I'm not intrinsically as cynical as this is making me sound, but you have way too much faith in politicians. They don't understand second-order arguments, they tend to have an incredibly naive view of the world ("All policemen good", etc.), and in general it is difficult or impossible to reason with them because they generally believe in their very hearts that technology can be legislated, and second-order effects aren't "real" and can also be legislated away... despite abundent evidence to the contrary available to anybody willing to just open their eyes and really look around them. "Observation" is not a politician's strong suit.

Oh, and ...

A lot of people have keyless entry remotes for their car, and I've never heard of one of those being "hacked" to unlock someone's door. It wouldn't be tough to make cars only respond to commands sent along with the proper key.

That's because the remotes were created by private companies who would subsequently be sued if the cars were stolen via that route. Companies with a long, rich engineering tradition, so when somebody told them the right way how to do those keyless entries, they actually listened to the engineers, because they were used to it.

Guess which part doesn't apply to the government? Hint: All of it.

For evidence, look at DeCSS, WEP, and any number of other standards. Strong things like the remote keyless entry are by far the exception, and they only arise when there is both the motivation and the necessary expertise to do it. (WEP probably had the expertise but not the motivation (network companies obviously wanted a bullet point, not a real feature, they didn't realize how important this was to us, now we're going to get "second generation" security that should have been here since day one). DeCSS has the motivation but not the expertise.)

If, and this is a big if, they hand the design of this system over to one of those car companies (with some level of experience in these things), it might be secure. If, as history shows is much more likely, the law hands over a design specification of what everything is supposed to do, it's going to be flawed.

And even if it's done competently, the keyless entry has some advantages that make it cryptographically feasible, like the ability to change the key on every entry. This sytem will probably have some small handful of "master keys", and no feasibl
Re:what, me worry? by arivanov · 2003-12-30 03:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think you are flaimbaiting, but I will still answer.
A lot of people have keyless entry remotes for their car, and I've never heard of one of those being "hacked" to unlock someone's door
Bollocks: Almost all alarms (even the most advertised ones) have been hacked. You simply leave in the wrong country. Just go somewhere east of the ex-iron curtain. When I lived there the neigbours in the same office block used to make a living off it as well as hackig ECUs, trip computers and other similar annoyances that show that the car has been driven for 300000 miles, not 30000 as is written on the fake documents.
Actually, hacking almost all of them is very simple because very few have a real challenge/responce and almost all are transmit only which forces them to have backdoors in the rolling code which allow resetting code sequence. If they did not, you would not have been able to use the spare keys because they are never at the same sequence number as the ones you normally use. Actually do the experiment for yourself. Use only one set of keys for a week and try the other one. You will notice a considerable delay before the alarm turns off. It is due to the keyfob going into reset-sequence mode. The sequence transmitted in the reset sequence mode on all but the most expensive "double rolling code" alarms is almost always the same. All you need is to jam the keyfob while doing normal transmission and record the reset sequence. Bingo. You are in.

But I'm told that if you lose the remotes for your car, the dealer can replace them
Bollocks again. Since 1995-1997 in order to replace keys on almost all cars I can think of, you need to bring both your car and your keys to the dealer. You cannot just ask for new keys if they have a built in key in chip immobilizer. Basically the dealer has to put the ECU into a special learning mode and it has to remember the codes for the keys. It is not secure, but in order to do it you have to have:
1. Same key (mechanically)
2. Tools to switch the ECU into learning mode. For anything besides Daihatsu this requires hooking it up the external diagnostic module that costs a little fortune and is issued only to authorized dealership (Daihatsu sells you a special key with the car that does that).
3. The keys available for programming while the ECU is in learning mode.
I can continue throuh the bollocks you have written, but dude. You seriously need a clue.

--
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:what, me worry? by jafac · 2003-12-30 04:06 · Score: 1

. . . next thing you know, cops'll want a remote-control device for people's guns.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:what, me worry? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:32 · Score: 0

# But I'm told that if you lose the remotes for your car, the dealer can replace them Bollocks again. Since 1995-1997 in order to replace keys on almost all cars I can think of, you need to bring both your car and your keys to the dealer. You cannot just ask for new keys if they have a built in key in chip immobilizer. Basically the dealer has to put the ECU into a special learning mode and it has to remember the codes for the keys. It is not secure, but in order to do it you have to have:

Actually, in New York, the car thieves get the VIN off the inspection sticker, then hire an attractive woman to social-engineer the dealer into providing a set of keys for that VIN. The cops didn't realize what was going on for quite a while, and were investigating people for insurance fraud because the stolen cars would turn up with keys in them.

Also, I've watched a dealership employee set up a new key fob at the curb for my 1999 Japanese car, there was no module, just a ritual of key-turning and button-pushing.
Re:what, me worry? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:00 · Score: 0

It's interesting to see how people who live in (mostly) gunless cultures misunderstand guns. If I point a gun at a car jacker, I don't have to shoot. He'll run. The idea of overwhelming force is that you likely don't have to use it.

Case in point, look at Moammar Khadafi's sudden "conversion". Not a single bomb dropped, but he knows that we can...
Re:what, me worry? by MadHungarian1917 · 2003-12-30 05:25 · Score: 1

In response to the gentleman who indicated that it was difficult to reprogram keyfobs for modern cars. He is correct in that you need physical access to the car but most of the time all you need to do is throw the Learn/Operate switch on the ECU or execute several IGN ON/OFF cycles within a defined period and you can reprogram keyfobs for fun and profit! on US made cars.
Re:what, me worry? by NoData · 2003-12-30 08:49 · Score: 1

Guess which part doesn't apply to the government?

Hmm...wait, wait, don't tell me...uhm...oooh, i know this one.....

Hint: All of it.
Damn you! I was gonna guess that!
Re:what, me worry? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 16:20 · Score: 0

Nobody cracks keyless entry because they're easy to bypass with cutters, or just by breaking a window. Why spend money on an expensive electronic device when a crowbar, wire cutters, and a basic understanding of how a starter works will get you past the key/keyless entry? Sort of like how kicking in a door is much cheaper than buying lockpicks...
Incidentally, if everybody shot cops when they harassed them, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We'd be better off with freedom instead of cops and bad laws.
Re:what, me worry? by mr.+methane · 2003-12-30 18:32 · Score: 1

In the real world, there is no such thing as perfect security.
In the real world, when you break into someone's house, we don't scream that the door is defective; we stick you in FMITA jail with other felons.
Despite the dire warnings of an Ashcroft hiding in every closet and peeking through my pr0n collection, I feel a lot more unsafe on an interstate than I do sitting at my computer.
I'd much rather see this system installed in my next car than an extra cupholder.

Tractor beam? pfff by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2003-12-30 00:10 · Score: 1, Funny

Most cruisers in the US already have repulsor beams, called a ramming bumper.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

I can't see them using this... by term8or · 2003-12-30 00:12 · Score: 1

After all, speed limiters have been available for many years, and they still let people drive cars on the road capable of going a 100 miles an hour faster than the legal limit.

Being a bit suspicious, I'd say the reason is that the UK government makes mucho 's from speeding fines. They won't want to give that up; they'll only use it on people dodging their road tax.

--

"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig. :) " - AC

Re:I can't see them using this... by rpjs · 2003-12-30 00:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

The uk.gov has been making noises for some time about using this sort of technology to enforce road pricing and speed limits. Whilst they'd lose revenue from speed cameras, they'd gain it from road pricing.

However, I can foresee this technology being *very* unpopular, and I can't help but think the uk.gov don't really understand what they could be setting themselves up for here.

Mr and Mrs Middle England are strange beasts: they'll happily put up with their every move being tracked by more CCTV cameras than just about anywhere else on Earth, and I have no doubt most of them will happily carry Gauleiter Blunkett's "entitlement" cards ("if you've nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear"), but stop them from exercising their God-given right to drive like lunatics at whatever speed they want, and it'll make the Poll Tax protests look like a minor grumble.

Ideally, I'd like to see the Revolution come to England for a more noble reason, but if does make the Revolution come to England at last, I'll be happy enough.
Re:I can't see them using this... by Biolo · 2003-12-30 00:35 · Score: 1

but obviously this device isn't going to be used to stop you from speeding in the first place, I predict it will just record the fact that you were speeding and fine you for it. In fact I predict that they will sample the data, look whether each motorist was within the speed limit at a number of random times during the past week/month/year and fine them for each that they weren't. This will encourage people to continue to speed as they hope that they will not get sampled at that point, and provide a nice big flow of cash into the treasury.

What's worse is that they will require car makers to fit these devices, who will pass the cost onto the car buyer, so we are in effect paying for our own personal speed camera/big brother device. This truly is the nanny state gone insane if this gets past. I just hope that they don't make it a crime to disable these units, or at least 'fail to keep them functional' (cough), as I know one in any car of mine would quickly develop a fault.

--
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
Re:I can't see them using this... by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-12-30 00:47 · Score: 1

It's like a couple of others...
Petrol Protests. People were willing to switch votes because the Conservatives promised something like 3p off a litre. To most families, that's about 50-60UKP per annum. Meanwhile, they get their pensions taxed and don't raise an eyebrow.
The dome. Never mind it was not tax money, people made a load of fuss about it. Never mind the Jubilee Line extension that cost about 10 times as much.
Personally, I'm getting fed up with driving in the UK. Traffic jams day and night (M25 this Sunday morning!), ludicrous petrol prices, lack of parking (esp free parking), police officers pulling people over using any excuse to breathalyse.
Re:I can't see them using this... by Ataru · 2003-12-30 00:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why don't you just slow down, keep within the speed limit, and save yourself a lot of silly bother?
Re:I can't see them using this... by FishermansEnemy · 2003-12-30 01:05 · Score: 0

"Petrol Protests. People were willing to switch votes because the Conservatives promised something like 3p off a litre. To most families, that's about 50-60UKP per annum. Meanwhile, they get their pensions taxed and don't raise an eyebrow.

The dome. Never mind it was not tax money, people made a load of fuss about it. Never mind the Jubilee Line extension that cost about 10 times as much."

Tony? is that you mate? :-)

--
-- If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.
Re:I can't see them using this... by Biolo · 2003-12-30 01:53 · Score: 1

I drive safely, within the limits of driver, road, vehicle and other traffic. Sometimes this means I do, say, 30 in a 50 limit, othertimes that means 90 in a 70 limit. There are some points on our roads where the speed limits are far too high for the road conditions, and others where the speed limits seem to have very little bearing on the real risks present. The problem with the current system is that the majority of drivers now drive at the speed limit irrespective of the actual road conditions, if they have an accident they will state that they were within the speed limit, as if that fact alone should have protected them. It is indicative of the whole nanny state that we are rapidly descending towards, that people delegate their own personal responsibilities to the state.

I fundamentally object and disagree with the extremely limited viewpoint that speed causes accidents. That, to be blunt, is bollocks. Statistically it is shown that speed in and of itself does not play a big part in accidents. Drivers not paying attention, faulty vehicles, poor road repair, ice and snow, fog, rain, poor driving style (does anyone really keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front any more?), all of these play a far bigger role than speed. Inappropriate speed is of course a big issue, but when was the last time any police officer pulled over and charged a motorist for going, say, 70, in a 70 limit, in busy traffic with ice and snow? I think you'd have to go back a very long time to find an incident like that. Incidents like that are viewed as more acceptable than doing 90 in a 70 limit, on an empty, dry road with excellent visibility. Now where, I challenge you, is the sense in that?

There are times where speeding actually reduces risk. Take for example a slow moving vehicle (tractor, lorry, etc) on an A or B road. Obviously you want to get past that vehicle as quickly as possible, there is after all a very good reason why they call the time you spend on the wrong side of the road overtaking 'time exposed to danger'. Personally under that sort of circumstance I overtake as quickly as is safe and possible, slowing down if necessary after I have completed the manouver. This reduces the risk of accident to myself, the vehicle I am overtaking and other road traffic, yet often this means I have, technically, committed an offence. Add to this the fact that already today most drivers spend more time looking out for speed cameras and looking at their speedometer than they do planning where they are going, what lane to be in, what is the appropriate speed, what other road users are doing, etc. This tells me that there is something extremely wrong with our system.

I have taken some advanced driving courses, I accept the personal responsibility to drive appropriately and with thought and consideration. What the government should be trying to do is get every driver to do the same, but of course that wouldn't make them money, even if it would save lives.

'Those that would trade freedom for security deserve neither'

--
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
Re:I can't see them using this... by scottme · 2003-12-30 03:26 · Score: 1

What an excellent suggestion. After all, the speed^W safety cameras are only there to help us obey whatever rules our betters might choose to impose on us.

I'm sure there's absolutely no significance in the strong correlation between the way a road's speed limit gets arbitrarily reduced, and the sprouting up of a series of enforcement cameras alongside it. We should all be happy to obey all the speed limits, nor must we grumble as our cars ground across the "sleeping policemen" that are becoming commonplace on almost any non-approved through route.
Re:I can't see them using this... by Ataru · 2003-12-30 09:06 · Score: 1

If you have a problem with a specific speed limit, by all means campaign to have it changed.
In the meantime, observe the speed limits like the rest of us or expect to be caught. Don't arbitrarily ignore the law and then start crying when you're nicked for it.
Re:I can't see them using this... by Ataru · 2003-12-30 10:13 · Score: 1

So speed limits should be optional?
Re:I can't see them using this... by Biolo · 2003-12-30 13:08 · Score: 1

I think speed limits, when they are put in place and enforced by the brain dead, inane methods used today in the UK, then yes. Call it civil disobedience if you will, a tried and tested form of protest.

So, I guess you always drive to the speed limit right? How much thought do you put into what is the appropriate speed? I bet I put in more. How much time do you spend looking at the speedo? I spend that time looking at the road. Take a step back, who do you really think is the safer driver?

--
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
Re:I can't see them using this... by Biolo · 2003-12-30 13:16 · Score: 1

As I said in the other post, it's called civil disobedience. It's just one method of protesting and trying to get the policy chanced. Unfortunately of course there are those who believe the simplistic mantra of 'speed kills'. The politicians like it because it's so simple they can spread it, they really don't like it when the populace tries to think for itself (just look at the Iraq issue). The fact that the policy is based on very little real evidence, with mounting evidence that it actually causes more harm than good, and just as a side effect functions to line the governments pockets is of course of no real import.

Personally I believe very little that comes out of the government (any government in any country) or the media without seeing the facts themselves and making my own opinion. If you've genuinely done that in this topic then you are of course entitled to your opinion, just as I and the other posters are entitled to ours. If on the other hand you only know what the government mantra has told you then I suggest you take the time to make an informed judgement before criticising that of others.

--
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
Re:I can't see them using this... by Ataru · 2003-12-30 23:25 · Score: 1

Sigh. They're called "limits" because you're not to exceed them. You're allowed to drive slower than the limit, duh.
Civil disobedience eh? Enjoy your fines, points and eventual disqualification.
It takes a fraction of a second to look at my speedo. Enough of the "safer driver" stuff, you know nothing about my driving ability.
Re:I can't see them using this... by Ataru · 2003-12-30 23:39 · Score: 1

0.5mv^2, what more evidence do you need?
So what specific speed limits are you going to campaign against?
Damn straight I'm entitled to my opinion, and I don't need your patronising suggestions, thankyouverymuch.

Yeah, I know... by Dr.+GeneMachine · 2003-12-30 00:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

ok, it is bad style to reply to your own posts, but i have something to add on a more serious note. This may cause problems. In Germany, the police are known to cause artificial traffic jams on highways to stop people trying to get away in their cars. Several police cars occupy all lanes of the highway and start slowing down until a jam occurs. Nice thought... But up to now there were several deaths due to people crashing into the end of the so created traffic jam. And, note, the people affected were not the perps, but totally innocent ones who happend to notice the jam to late. I wonder if the proposed system might lead to similar occurences, which, in my humble opinion, are totally intolerable.

--
This comment does not exist.

Re:Yeah, I know... by babyrat · 2003-12-30 03:17 · Score: 1

people driving at high speeds and not paying enough attention not to notice a big frickin' car stopping in front of them scares me more than anything else.

Bloody English police by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:15 · Score: 0

are always looking for a reason not to do their job properly :(

Lets concentrate on catching criminals first guys then you may gain some respect.

People might then just start to give a toss about what you have to say. /me storms off stage left

Terrible Idea by evilviper · 2003-12-30 00:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why is it that people always cling on to the worst ideas? First remote controls to change signal-lights, now this.

$50 of electronics and everyone going down that 5 mile stretch of freeway will be going 2MPH for no apparent reason.

I'm sure people like the idea for resolving car chases, but better solutions have been around forever. Hooks on the front bumber of a cop-car could easily grip-on and stop a car. Maybe a decent-sized spear on a cable could be shot into the back of a car. Better yet, rig a medium-calibur gun onto police helicopters and watch a chase quickly end as your engine block turns to swiss cheese in seconds.

Portable barricades (fences) could be in all cop cars, and put just ahead of the chase, where it can't be avoided. Spike strips would be nearly as good, but it seems terribly few cops are actually carrying them.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:Terrible Idea by jabberjaw · 2003-12-30 00:46 · Score: 1

Better yet, rig a medium-calibur gun onto police helicopters and watch a chase quickly end as your engine block turns to swiss cheese in seconds.
However, this approach also has the ability to turn you into swiss cheese in seconds. This would be a PR nightmare the first time a 15 year old carjacker has a closed coffin funeral due to severe maiming of his body. Weeping mother sues the state and chaos insues. I personally am for the use of stop sticks .
Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:05 · Score: 0

you think helicopters with guns is ok, but a safe remote use of technology alarms you!?

and the readers of slashdot think you insightful!

jeez, what a world.
Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:26 · Score: 0

"This would be a PR nightmare the first time a 15 year old carjacker has a closed coffin funeral due to severe maiming of his body."

Crying shame. They should arrest the mother too, the way they arrest mothers of truent children. Obviously she wasn't paying enough attention to him and its her fault. When folks have kids, it *SHOULD* be a burden...no tax breaks for having multiple rodents dropping out of your crotch...tax INCREASES because you chose to have the worlds population increase that much further to its downfall.

It was once said that if you save a mans life, you are forever responsible for him and his actions therefore. Why doesn't this apply to children.

If a 15 year old steal my car, I'm all for using all the force needed to make certain he doesn't steal another car. Folks forget when THEY commit a crime, its not the police that have doomed them...it is themselves for they have put a series of events into actions.

For the innocent, that is a different story. But tell me where there ever is a justified reason to steal someones vehicle...there is never a reason to steal from another person under any external circumstances. The fact someone else has something you don't have and need it desparately doesn't mean they should give it up for you.

15 year old car thieves need to be mowed down in the streets like any other criminal. And their family members need to be imprisoned as a deterent for others who might be willing to put their own life on the line, but not so willing to do so to their loved ones.
Re:Terrible Idea by ckaminski · 2003-12-30 01:32 · Score: 0, Redundant

Hooks on the front bumper are ineffective, as most bumpers are secured by four to eight tiny bolts that sheer at about 40K-70KPSI of force. A spear is even worse because there's nothing in the car for the hook to grab. Seats, trunk doors, all will get shredded when the police car tries to stop.

As for the helicopter gun idea... Yea, okay, shooting from a moving platform onto another moving platform into a box only 2 feet to a side.
Not sure I want to be the cop on that trigger...
Re:Terrible Idea by Tim+C · 2003-12-30 01:42 · Score: 1

It was once said that if you save a mans life, you are forever responsible for him and his actions therefore. Why doesn't this apply to children.

Because it's bullshit - I cannot possibly know what that man will do from the moment I save him to the day that he dies. At least with my kid, I'm responsible for her upbringing, and so have some degree of control over how she turns out. So I'm not entirely diagreeing with you - just calling bullshit on that quote. I'd also like to point out that after a certain age, a person has to be responsible for their own actions. Where would you draw the line? Lock them up, their parents, their relatives, friends, teachers? They all have a hand in their development, after all.

But tell me where there ever is a justified reason to steal someones vehicle

No, you tell me what justification there can be for killing someone just for stealing a car.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Terrible Idea by evilviper · 2003-12-30 02:15 · Score: 0, Troll

First off, it's quite unlikely it would ever hit a human. It is not meant to be used causally.

If you are that terified of potential of bad PR, you should take cops' guns away. That would prevent any more children being accidentally killed, but I don't think the PR would be better...

I think you'd see positive PR when people no longer see criminals causing thousands of dollars in police expenses, only to have the criminals getting away from the cops anyhow. If you can end a chase in 10 seconds, the PR would be phenominally good.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Terrible Idea by evilviper · 2003-12-30 02:20 · Score: 0, Troll

but a safe remote use of technology alarms you!?

No, it is not safe by any means. Criminals will begin using it immediately.

With a Gun, you either have the gun, or you don't. No $50 worth of electronics is going to give the criminals control of the gun.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:23 · Score: 0

I would be 100% behind you with the idea of taxing families. Actually though, I'd simply give non-parents a state benefit {which they could spend on contraceptives.....} and allow non-reversible surgical sterilisation on the NHS. That would make women think twice about getting pregnant ..... it's a damn shame humans aren't hermaphrodites really, 'cause if there was a 50-50 chance of the man getting pregnant, they wouldn't have so much sex.

Also I'd change the law on abortion ..... instead of needing medical approval to have a pregnancy terminated, I'd make it so you would need a special licence to have a baby.
Re:Terrible Idea by Stalus · 2003-12-30 03:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Spike strips would be nearly as good, but it seems terribly few cops are actually carrying them.
If you read the article, this is the entire reason why this legislation exists in the first place. They're scared about the manufacturing of ride flat tires, because it renders the spike strips ineffective.
Re:Terrible Idea by Politburo · 2003-12-30 03:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Portable barricades (fences) could be in all cop cars, and put just ahead of the chase, where it can't be avoided.

Let's see.. a portable barricade that will stop a 2 ton vehicle travelling at 60 mi/h? Right. Portable if you happen to have a crane on-site. Actually, they already do this. They park the car across the road. Naturally this can cause great damage to the vehicle and is not the preferred solution (although obviously more desired than a loss of life).

Everyone else has already debunked your other great ideas, so clearly the solution isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Why there is this assumption that all criminals will magically be able to get these devices is beyond me. Scanners have been available forever and only a small percentage of criminals actually use them, and an even smaller percentage successfully use them (ever see an episode of COPS where they just keep using the radio because the guy was too dumb to turn the scanner down?). Scanners are readily made available, as well. Any device that we're talking about in this case would have to be a hack, which would reduce the availability even more. Also, as people mentioned above: who wants a device that can disable a car? Then all you have is a 2 ton brick, and no way to leave. I'm not saying there's no reason to be against this, but so far most of the reasons given to be against it don't cut it.
Re:Terrible Idea by TomV · 2003-12-30 03:51 · Score: 1

I personally am for the use of stop sticks .

While the Stop Stick does look like a better tyre-deflater than the Stinger, it still falls prey to the very issue discussed in the article - that car manufacturers will very soon be selling models which can run safely with a flat tyre. Clearly no sane government could prohibit the introduction of such an obviously great safety improvement, so some alternative to tyre-deflation as a means of stopping rogue vehicles is needed.

Maybe if we mandated a homing target thingy embedded in the block for the medium-caliber gun to aim at we could reduce the risk of the high-pulbicity funeral ? ;-)
Re:Terrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:42 · Score: 0

Draw the line? At the parents of course...unless the friends and teachers are directly involved in the crime. I encourage my friends to do stupid stuff all the time. I would hope they had a decent enough upbringing to avoid doing it...and if not, the fact that I tell them it would be f'n hillarious if they robbed a bank while buck naked except a red clown nose where their penis should be means nothing.

Teachers? Why...they are paid to teach a subject. Students can fail a class...and as someone that works in higher education, its not our responsibility to ensure kids that didn't get the proper guidance from their parents get it. If they don't want to pay attention, I have 30 other students to worry about.

As for justifying killing someone?

I can justify this very easily. They are somewhere they are not supposed to be. They are treating you as if you are just a means to an end, and not as a human, which means they are animallike in intelligence, and thus should be treated as such. My dogs don't snatch food from the table with out permission. Several years back on the family farm on summer, a thief tried to steal from the tool shed...he got greedy and when we saw the pick'em up truck full of our shit, we immediately to the shed to see what else was gone. Hiding behind some discarded shelves, we saw the guy hiding...looked to be a mid 20s decent looking guy. Place was sweaty as hell and my uncle grabs me and says No One In Here, kicking my shins and pulls me out along with a chain and a lock.

Get outside, and he says LOUDLY, I guess I gotta lock up in case the raccoons get in and proceeds to chain everything shut.

3 days later, the cops come by, the thieves family had mentioned he had gone missing and had mentioned he was headed over to the farm. They knew what kind of a person he was, and they knew what he was doing, all the while playing dumb. We looked around and mentioned an off truck was parked on the side, and walking over surprise surprise, whats all of our shit doin' in here boss?

Cop gets a little suspicious on both ends...uncle mentions that only thing off was that the shed was opened and he locked it shut again.

Guy had spent 3 days no water in the middle of summer in a metal shed. Spent a few days in the hospital getting rehydrated. Sued the family for false imprisonment with his family joining in.

People learn from their family whats good and true. Anyone thats willing to steal obviously did not get the doctrination one needed. Anyone willing to steal from another human is less than animal and should be put down as one would if ol' yellar came up to you all foamy mouthed.

Unless of course, you see nothing wrong with treating innocent humans this way? You think that the have nots should be allowed to take from the haves any time they want. Having more that someone else is not a reason to have it taken from you.

You sound like the kind of man that wouldn't think twice about sening your kids into a KMart to hide stolen electronics under their diapers and then get all uppity when the guards want to search you. If thats the kind of person you are, please let us know so we can send the proper authorities out to make certain that you and your progeny never reproduce again.
Re:Terrible Idea by evilviper · 2003-12-30 07:02 · Score: 1

Let's see.. a portable barricade that will stop a 2 ton vehicle travelling at 60 mi/h? Right. Portable if you happen to have a crane on-site.

Oh come on. Even a measly chain-link fence can *almost* do this.

Actually, they already do this. They park the car across the road.

That's a very different situation. Cars were definately not made to handle perpidicular impacts... If the cops would line-up their vehicles, side-by-side, lengthwise against the oncomming vehcile, it would work perfectly.

Additionally, stringing a fence across the road, attaching it to cop cars on either side, is certainly a good way to keep it in-place... No crane needed.

Everyone else has already debunked your other great ideas,

Some of the stupidest arguements I've ever heard, so I didn't think there was even a point in replying. Yours I'm replying to only because it's at +4, so people are obviously being taken-in by your poorly thought-out arguments.

Why there is this assumption that all criminals will magically be able to get these devices is beyond me.

Magically? What's so magical about it? I could build one with the slightest bit of information to start with.

Also, it's quite common for police equipment to fall into criminal hands. Many murders have been commited with guns belonging to police.

Scanners have been available forever and only a small percentage of criminals actually use them

That's because they are of quite little use. A scanner is not a weapon, it almost always only tells you what you already know.

This device on the other hand, is a weapon in and of itself. Cause a traffic jam, prevent someone from driving away, etc.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Terrible Idea by Politburo · 2003-12-30 09:33 · Score: 1

I could build one with the slightest bit of information to start with.

Assuming it's a simple device, sure. However, I would doubt (and hope) that any such device would not be made so simple as to allow home production.

This device on the other hand, is a weapon in and of itself. Cause a traffic jam, prevent someone from driving away, etc.

No, that's ALL it does. It's not a weapon. It stops your car. That's IT. What criminal wants that? All they have after they've stopped your car is a STOPPED CAR. Not a very good getaway vehicle, especially since most people would be alerting the authorities with a cell phone as soon as it happened. I'm not saying no problems might come of such a device. I'm saying that any problems that come from such a device would be minimal.
Re:Terrible Idea by evilviper · 2003-12-30 10:29 · Score: 1

However, I would doubt (and hope) that any such device would not be made so simple as to allow home production.

You obviously aren't in electronics. Any and all devices "allow home production" because even the most ingenious electronics people in the world, do stuff off-the-clock, in their homes, as it were.

Now then, the cops don't have any magical electronics that the rest of us can't build. The best they could ever hope to do, is to include some decent encryption. Sync encryption can be reverse-engineered with little effort.

Public-key on the other hand, would be much more difficult. Unless they want to add hundreds of dollars of extra electronics into cars, they aren't going to be using strong public-key encryption. Weak public-key encryption can be broken in a short period of time, and after that, you would have control of any car.

It's not a weapon. It stops your car. That's IT. What criminal wants that?

How many people have gotten away from armed criminals in their cars? A great many, that's for sure. With this, those same criminals could have this sort of device, and use it to prevent your escape.

It wouldn't be a getaway vehicle for them, it would prevent it from helping you survive.

All they have after they've stopped your car is a STOPPED CAR. Not a very good getaway vehicle,

Yeah, a criminal would never reach under the hood and disconnect the device (or swap it with a modified version that would allow the car to run).

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Terrible Idea by Motherfucking+Shit · 2003-12-30 15:01 · Score: 1

Also, as people mentioned above: who wants a device that can disable a car?
Me! I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

--
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.

Just wait till Joe Public gets hold of these... by Channard · 2003-12-30 00:19 · Score: 1

.. it'd make the remote control traffic light changer yesterday's news. Someone cut you up? Hit your handy bootlegged car stopping device and speed past them. Until they do the same to you...

RC Cars.. Haha by srosebush · 2003-12-30 00:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Probably will be easy to hack, Then you could just block the frequency the car uses for remote control.. Boom Police don't control you... If you ask me it sounds like something from that scene in Terminator 3...

They are way behind.... by sopuli · 2003-12-30 00:20 · Score: 4, Informative

...the Finnish police has had this for ages.

Re:They are way behind.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:42 · Score: 0

but it doesn't involve infringing everyone's rights.

why do the europeans find the best solutions all the time???
Re:They are way behind.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:05 · Score: 0

I'd like to see them stop a 40 tonne truck using this method
Re:They are way behind.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-31 01:28 · Score: 0

That's why we have POLICE TANKS!

Well no, we don't. Kinda sad really.

hook it up to accelerator instead... by zr · 2003-12-30 00:20 · Score: 1

...and watch need4speed sales skyrocket!

This absurd by Fizzl · 2003-12-30 00:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is absurd on so many levels.

I don't drive. Infact, I don't even have a drivers license.

Still I find this very disturbing. They don't even give examples where this would be usefull.
They simply want control.

There is no way in hell they could implement it so that it wouldn't be by-passable. How long it takes for someone to hack the fuel injection system of a new controller chip?
Then, the more dangerous area. How long does it takes someone to hack the signal to stop anyone they like?
Govermental (not saying which goverment mind you) projects are notoriously craptaliciously implemented at best. They take the cheapest bidder to desing the system.
Whee. Look ma, no hands.
*presses the button to transmit the cloned signal captured from a cop stopping a car*

They just want to herd the cattle, as they see people. Why not simply regulate driving alltogether and improve on public transportation instead?
Yes, Yes, I know public transportation isn't feasible everywhere. I live in Finland. We absolutely need cars to get around outside of the few cities.

Then the annoying stupid joke someone has already probably made: In Russia, Car drives YOU
HAAA-FUCKING-HAA... Very funny.

And now that I got all worked up, I'll conclude with: No, it ain't gonna fly. There ought to be some smart people who will point out flaws in whatever desing they come up and send it back to board untill time stops. It's just too dangerous.

--
Bot Assisted Blogging

Re:This absurd by h4rm0ny · 2003-12-30 01:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

There ought to be some smart people who will point out flaws in whatever desing they come up and send it back to board untill time stops. It's just too dangerous.

I'm feeling cynical today, but consider this... There is no money to be made from not doing something. There is no status for the project managers, there is no incentive for budget-hungry beauracrats to say at the start "this is a bad idea - lets just put the money back into paying police officers."

And most especially, politicians must be seen to be doing something. A gadget like this will look good on them and if it's crap, then it can quietly be forgotten.

As I say though, I'm cynical today. I'm sure that you're right.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

What do they need this for! by fyeles · 2003-12-30 00:23 · Score: 1

There are enough laws and means to discourage speeding: Speed traps, speed limits and on top of that, FINES. Moreover, there are more cars in UK than the country can handle - people are encouraged to use public transport.

This will be open for abuse. Can anyone think of a possible use of this feature?

--
Curiosity killed a cat, but for a while I was a suspect.

Re:What do they need this for! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

This will be open for abuse. Can anyone think of a possible use of this feature?

Safe resolution of dangerous car chases.
Re:What do they need this for! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:00 · Score: 0

a possible use?

er, no can't think of anything at all. I mean, why would the police ever want to stop people?
makes no sense.
Re:What do they need this for! by IckySplat · 2003-12-30 01:13 · Score: 1

One possible use is for criminals to
stop the police cars .... Think about it :)

The Police use commonly available consumer cars
for police work, and if they have a way of disabling these units, then everyone else will get them shortly thereafer, making the whole
excersize moot.

--
Help! help!, the termites are eating my DRAM!!!

they will create the car buster.... by katalyst · 2003-12-30 00:25 · Score: 2, Funny

but then someone will create the car buster buster, then they will create the car buster buster buster... it is a viscious cycle
the guy with the extra buster will win this recursive battle ;)

--
|/________
|\A|ALYS|

WTF?! by oPless · 2003-12-30 00:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

What a dangerous idea.
Any loss of (driver controlled) power is just as dangerous as, say, shooting out tires or using those tire bursting devices.

The questions that should be asked are WHY do the police think they need this control over other peoples cars? Instead of going after motorists, maybe the Sussex Police should be concentrating on Robbery (up by a third)

What gives for these non-elected morons think they are trying to limit the liberties of normal citizens?

This country is going mad. Not quite so mad as the USA, but does anyone know of a non-idiotic state that we all could goto ?

Re:WTF?! by Insipid+Trunculance · 2003-12-30 01:03 · Score: 1

Everyday our wise police announce a new gimmick to quieten the people.there is a new "initiative" everyday with new e this and elctronic that but what about some good old policing.

When i report a burglary dont give me a bloody case ref no, come down and investigate it.

Thats the reason we pay 235 per year for the metropolitan police.Every country runs a police service as a public service run out of taxes but we have to PAY for non-policing.

When i report a nuisance i dont want them to cruise flashing their lights and blaring their sirens but to do something about the miscreants, not just chase them off.

So much so for their latest "e"nitiative.

--
Wanted : A Signature.
Re:WTF?! by silas_moeckel · 2003-12-30 01:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

But that would involve work only detectives get to do work your normal police get stuck doing this garbage. If they would concentrate on enforcing laws as in going after violent and property crime rather than trying to tax the populace through fines we migh actualy get crime rates down. Generaly speaking the car chases dont do any good the govenor in my state actual orded thaey be cut off after 80 to keep inocent victims down after all most of the time they know the vehical or can track it via helicopter till they stop then send in swat to make the arrest. Car chases just endanger peoples lives but they are fun for the officers involved it would seem.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:37 · Score: 0

Sweden or Canada are very nice alternatives.
Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:20 · Score: 0

"does anyone know of a non-idiotic state that we all could goto"

Sorry... GOTOs are forbidden.

Seriously, perhaps we could start our own country. After the middle east shoot their load, maybe we can claim some of the land that isn't permanantly irradiated (with fallout).

Perhaps get some of that unused land from Canada. I have always wanted to walk around saying "Eh" after each sentence.
Re:WTF?! by plusser · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 1

Imagine if the system accidentally told the wrong car to stop; a car in a different area, travelling quite normally at 70mph on a motorway for example. Couldn't this alone make the concept of this system just a tad dangereous, as it could put all road users in danger, not just the driver deciding to do a bit of "death riding"?

Surely the best way to get drivers to slow down is to get them to driver slower cars in the first place? (it also would do wonders for fuel economy!)

The day when a car drives itself cannot come soon enough. Although if it did happen I can confidently predict complete gridlock in the UK within two hours as the auto pilots on all the cars ridgidly stick to the highway code and find that there isn't enough roadspace left anymore.

The Plusser
Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:38 · Score: 0

At least in America, I can get FAR away from the police! And the right to own guns... please many Americans STOCK PILE the things!

Born and raised in Germany, living free in America :)
Re:WTF?! by mormop · 2003-12-30 05:58 · Score: 3, Informative

What a dangerous idea

Couldn't agree more. Several incidents make me feel very reluctant to offer anything other than total condemnation for this one.

1) Driving along the outside lane of the M25 a somewhere around 70 when an electrical fault in the ignition switch killed all the electrics including the indicators, ignition, etc. As the car slowed I hit the hazard lights and, not wanting to stop in the outside lane, started to pull over toward the hard shoulder while my wife frantically tried to gesture our intent to the continual stream of vehicles that were illegally passing us in the other two lanes. OK so it doesn't sound too bad on paper but it was bloody hair raising at the time and if people hadn't been paying attention it could easily have turned into a pile up.

2) Friend of mine cornering on his motorbike when an alarm immobiliser fault killed the ignition. Sudden loss of power while leant over on a bike? Broken ribs and trashed Suzuki.

3) Me and wife on RD350LC circling the roundabout at the M25/A2 junction. As we're crossing the lights an articulated lorry jumps the red light and pulls across our path. No way to stop, only way out was to dump it into second, whack the throttle open and cut across the cars in the two lanes to our right that were (luckily) driven by people who reacted fast enough when they noticed what was going on.

Anyway, the point is that sudden losses of power or unexpected changes in vehicle behaviour are, in certain circumstances, potential death not only for the driver but those around him/her who may not be expecting the vehicle in front to stop for no apparent reason. If I'd had a speed limiter acting on 3 above and hadn't been able to accelerate out of the way, the artic would have killed both of us.

For that other old favourite the speed camera, check out this article Safespeed.org and head for the bit marked "One third of roads fatalities are now caused by speed cameras".

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Re:WTF?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:36 · Score: 0

This country is going mad. Not quite so mad as the USA, but does anyone know of a non-idiotic state that we all could goto ?
Sadly, I don't think one exists. The whole world is headed in this frightening direction. We won't have a truly free nation, as, for example, the US was in the beginning of its life, until large-scale bloody revolution.
As Jefferson famously stated, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It's getting to be that time again.
However, in the US the word "patriot" is being quietly redefined to pervert the meaning of this quote. The current government knows that these words of wisdom from the founding fathers are still full of vitality, so they are redefining our language to make the quotes mean something else.
We're going to see millions of people obliterated in bloody conflict in our lifetimes. I will guarantee you that.
Re:WTF?! by shadowbearer · 2003-12-30 12:30 · Score: 1

I have had a similar experience. Driving thru Minneapolis once in my 1980 Pontiac Sunbird when the ignition module quit in heavy traffic. Result was a dead engine. I thought I was a dead mofo....trying frantically to claw my way across three lanes of traffic towards the right hand shoulder with cars and big rigs climbing up my tailpipe.

I still get the shakes thinking about it.

SB

--
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.

Regarding your sig... by Dr.+GeneMachine · 2003-12-30 00:27 · Score: 1

I made the terrible error of clicking... Be assured that I will not rest until I have hunted you down and brought you to justice. My wrath will be terrible, my retribution swift!

--
This comment does not exist.

Re:Regarding your sig... by evilviper · 2003-12-30 02:11 · Score: 0, Troll

Wouldn't it have been nice if my .sig included some kind of "WARNING:" to make sure people don't just click without thinking?

If you had javascript disabled, you would not have had any problem.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Regarding your sig... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:13 · Score: 0

That's why you should use Konqueror ..... you can enable and disable JS on a site-by-site basis.
Re:Regarding your sig... by Dr.+GeneMachine · 2003-12-30 02:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic

difficult, difficult... Of course that WARNING is there... but it also makes curious... And rest assured - I have Javascript disabled now!

--
This comment does not exist.
Re:Regarding your sig... by evilviper · 2003-12-30 06:21 · Score: 1

And rest assured - I have Javascript disabled now!

I'm glad to hear that I've done my part...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Obligatory quote... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:30 · Score: 0

Things that you own end up owning you.

'Nuff said.

Anonymous Cowards Unite

STOP-ping Every Car Carrying an Almanac.. by leoaugust · 2003-12-30 00:30 · Score: 3, Informative

I thought about it this morning when I came across an article which described Almanac's as terrorist paraphernalia. And it got me wondering ...

Could the National Security need some day be so great (threat is at Red ! for example) that it might be necessary to peep into millions of cars to identify the thousands of them carrying Almanacs, being stopped by tens of thousands of cops trying to figure out which one is "inappropriately" marked and highlighted.

Just a crazy parting thought for a very crazy year ... Happy New Year everyone ....

Here is the article paraphrased from Yahoo ...

FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
December 29, 2003
The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying almanacs, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning. It urged officers to watch during searches, traffic stops and other investigations for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if the books are annotated in suspicious ways. The FBI noted that use of almanacs or maps may be innocent, "the product of legitimate recreational or commercial activities." But it warned that when combined with suspicious behavior -- such as apparent surveillance -- a person with an almanac "may point to possible terrorist planning." "The practice of researching potential targets is consistent with known methods of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that seek to maximize the likelihood of operational success through careful planning," the FBI wrote.
The FBI said information typically found in almanacs that could be useful for terrorists includes profiles of cities and states and information about waterways, bridges, dams, reservoirs, tunnels, buildings and landmarks. It said this information is often accompanied by photographs and maps. "For local law enforcement, it's just to help give them one more piece of information to raise their suspicions," said David Heyman, a terrorism expert for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It helps make sure one more bad guy doesn't get away from a traffic stop, maybe gives police a little bit more reason to follow up on this."
Is this a joke.
The FBI urged police to report such discoveries to the local U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the bulletin this week and verified its authenticity.
Guess it's not a Joke.

--
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...

Re:STOP-ping Every Car Carrying an Almanac.. by jrumney · 2003-12-30 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Today its almanacs, tommorrow maps. I'd hate to think what the FBI think of people with GPS naviagation systems in their cars.
Re:STOP-ping Every Car Carrying an Almanac.. by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 01:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Could the National Security need some day be so great (threat is at Red ! for example) that it might be necessary to peep into millions of cars to identify the thousands of them carrying Almanacs, being stopped by tens of thousands of cops trying to figure out which one is "inappropriately" marked and highlighted.

One article I read while the alert systems was being introduced indicated that a "red" alert would basically enforce a police state - at least in populated areas. Curfews, stop and search of anybody in a public place, the whole works. Don't worry though, they'll only use it if necessary and if you're innocent you've nothing to fear, right?

--
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Re:STOP-ping Every Car Carrying an Almanac.. by GoofyBoy · 2003-12-30 02:39 · Score: 1

In Soviet America ... books mark you!

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:STOP-ping Every Car Carrying an Almanac.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:08 · Score: 0

FBI warned to stop alamanac users

It has come to the attention of the FBI that there exists a threat of terrorists raising funding by using sports almanacs to place bets on past races. FBI agents and municipal forces should pay attention to any almanacs when carrying out stop and searches. Agents should also look out for silver Delorians and big burn marks on the road indicating 88 mph may have been reached.
Re:STOP-ping Every Car Carrying an Almanac.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:14 · Score: 0

Don't worry though, they'll only use it if necessary and if you're innocent you've nothing to fear, right?

Although this reason is often ignored, this is the single primary reason why we have the second amendment. An armed society is subject to no tyranny.

Slashdot Nitpickers Society? by Channard · 2003-12-30 00:30 · Score: 1

Probably will be easy to hack, Then you could just block the frequency the car uses for remote control.. Boom Police don't control you... If you ask me it sounds like something from that scene in Terminator 3...

It does. Though it'll come too late to explain how the movie makers thought they could get away with the terminator remote controlling cars that had no remote driving mechanism to start with. Maybe she spawned midget terminators who drove the cars just out sight..

block the jammer & jam the police by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:31 · Score: 0

& get away. bonus points for implementing this before the police do.

2003 is making 1984 look like 1968 by h4rm0ny · 2003-12-30 00:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

This pales in comparison to the less visible controls that have been introduced recently (e-mail snooping, database consolidation, increasing investigative powers) but it's still not nice.

I'd be surprised if the government monolith is quick enough to keep ahead of the hackers and criminals on this one. Result - false expectations of safety and only the innocent being subject to this. Though less common, I expect non-police officers will get access and be able to use this system on people from time to time. Nice.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

Re:2003 is making 1984 look like 1968 by tommck · 2003-12-30 01:23 · Score: 1

Too... many... dates.... must... stopReadingThePost!
</kirk voice>

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:2003 is making 1984 look like 1968 by ckaminski · 2003-12-30 01:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Or used to perpetrate more carjackings...

Remind anyone of by 3lb4rt0 · 2003-12-30 00:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Minority Report? They've seen the film and now want remote control over everones car! Bwahahaha

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 00:33 · Score: 2, Informative

But what if they just disable your clutch? :) Seriously, if they can stop the car remotely, they can probably do it by taking complete control and just forcing the brakes on.

Except that braking systems are either hydraulic (cars and light trucks) or air (heavy trucks) actuated and clutches are either cable or hydraulic. The article talked about electronically controlled governers while the PD's in the states have been using nail strips or EMP devices (I think) to end chases.

--

At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan

They won't stop me ... by Dark$ide · 2003-12-30 00:34 · Score: 1

I doubt they'd want to retrofit this to my 1952 Citroen. So I'll be sailing past all the modern cars that get stopped. The UK Government already fleece us with 4,500 speed cameras that are installed to generate revenue rather than improve road safety. This is the obvious next move. Next they'll be fining us for walking at more than 3MPH. Bring back the red flag, say I.

--

Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

Re:They won't stop me ... by Gordonjcp · 2003-12-30 01:36 · Score: 1

Ooooh, what have you got? I strongly suspect they won't fit it to my 1978 GSA Pallas, or my 1985 GSA Special. Or, indeed, my 1990 BX...

So what is it? Light 15?
Re:They won't stop me ... by Dark$ide · 2003-12-30 04:46 · Score: 1

It's a Slough built Traction Avant Light 15.
I'll be in Interlaken for ICCCR 13 www.icccr.org.

--
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
Re:They won't stop me ... by Gordonjcp · 2003-12-30 05:28 · Score: 1

Nice. I wish I could get to that. Ah well.

The UK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:35 · Score: 0

This is exactly why I don't live in the UK any more.
A communist/stalinist repressive state dressed up as
a progressive nation.

I am British, by the way.

- Moomin

Re:The UK by thbigr · 2003-12-30 00:48 · Score: 1

IF you live in the USA, get ready things are changing that way fast.

--
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Re:The UK by scottme · 2003-12-30 01:35 · Score: 1

Don't worry. If by any means they manage to get approval for this, the implementation will be so crap that it won't work anyway - though it will have cost millions before anyone in authority either realizes or admits to realizing what a dumb idea it was to begin with.
Re:The UK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:08 · Score: 0

The reall sad thing is that most Brits will pay
for this with higher taxes before these assholes
decide that it was a bad idea. Eve heard of taxes
coming down?

- Moomin

Re:UK != England by Coelacanth · 2003-12-30 00:35 · Score: 1

That is like saying North America means the same as USA ( though there may be some people who think that ).

That's not true. YET.

(evil cackle)

Re:UK != England by Bobby+Onions · 2003-12-30 00:36 · Score: 1

Hey, some of the inhabitants of the North American continent it's perfectly normal to have a baseball "world series" that involves only AMERICAN and CANADIAN teams, so anything goes!

Fly by wire by Liquidkristal · 2003-12-30 00:36 · Score: 2, Informative

The system can only control cars that have 'fly by wire' systems to control the engine. So if like my car there is a cable running from the back of the accelerator pedel to the top of the engine which controls the engine power, they are going to have a very hard time stopping me. They really haven't thought this through, speed doesn't kill people, admittedly it doesn't help, its driver awareness that kills people, I see people everyday who are blissfully unaware that they can see behind their car using a shiny bit of metal bolted on the outside (mirrors), te same group who travel everywhere without using indicators (turn signals)

Re:Fly by wire by jackb_guppy · 2003-12-30 01:54 · Score: 1

Look at the inition system, must cars are computer controlled, just turn off the spark.

Or if you are a true desiel, change the timing on values to remain closed.

Go a press that gas petal now!
Re:Fly by wire by schovanec · 2003-12-30 02:29 · Score: 1

Even easier: Cut off the power supply to the electric fuel pump.
Re:Fly by wire by jackb_guppy · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 1

Thought of that after I posted...

The low-jack could be built-in to the fuel pump and placed inside the tank, so would be hard to get at.

That is what this is all about, Low-Jack or On-Star type of systems.
Re:Fly by wire by Gordonjcp · 2003-12-30 03:02 · Score: 1

Most diesel engines use a mechanical pump, even now. A few (some VW, Peugeot/Citroen HDI) use electronic injection, but it's not that common. It would be impossible to reliably retrofit this to older diesels.
Re:Fly by wire by fishbowl · 2003-12-30 04:59 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I want a hot wire into the fuel tank.
I'm okay with a cold wire for a passive device to measure fuel level, but I don't think anything with a motor is a good idea in there.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:38 · Score: 0

SCO will sue England for using its tractor beam technology. Of course they will refuse to release most the offending data so England can remove the offending parts but the examples they do release look like old Star Trek episodes.

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch by beezly · 2003-12-30 00:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey Ste,

I doubt this could happen *easily* (but it's certainly possible). The brake pedal in any car on the roads in the UK is mandated by law to have a direct physical (either hydraulic or pneumatic) connection to the brake system.

Likewise, the clutch on all cars I've seen is a physical connection (i.e. there's no electronics involved in making it work).

maybe also a privacy issue? by koekepeer · 2003-12-30 00:39 · Score: 1

okay fine, let's say this is going to happen. in order to selectively stop a car in heavy traffic, each car should have a unique identifier attached to it, else all traffic near the police car (including the police car itself, hehe) would be stopped, right?

we had these discussions on /. before (RFID etc), and personally, i think it's a bad thing to tag our citizens and/or their belongings.

just a thought

Re:maybe also a privacy issue? by Sesostris+III · 2003-12-30 01:21 · Score: 1

Cars already have a unique identifier attached to them. It's called a Number Plate. Have to have one both at the front and the back!

So, I'm afraid that in this case, our belongings are already tagged.

Same outside the UK. Indeed is there any country where cars don't have to have number plates?

Also, as a matter of curiosity, has anyone ever proposed scrapping them as they are an abuse of privacy (and liberty)?

--
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
Re:maybe also a privacy issue? by ajs318 · 2003-12-30 02:34 · Score: 1

Yeah, but you can easily change a number plate. Especially if you can find a similar car -- perhaps belonging to a person you know for sure won't have an alibi -- and replicate its number plates. There are regulations to prevent unauthorised manufacture of number plates; these, however, are about as effective as a chocolate fireguard, only somewhat less edible.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:maybe also a privacy issue? by koekepeer · 2003-12-30 02:43 · Score: 1

i wouldn't say a number plate is the same thing (in terms of privacy) as a device, likely cryptographically 'secured', coupled to the electronics system of your car, allowing any officer to stop you when they please.

but i see your point. so far, number plates are registered to the owner of a car, so if someone else is driving your car, and break the law, you get the bill :\

i wouldn't be surprised at all if one day it'd be required to stick in your ID-key to be able to start the engine and drive... just a bit of an extension to the current plan, and so much more convenient for the law enforcement officer...

of course circumvention of this method would be as illegal as driving without number plates.

i don't know of people scraping their plates, i do know of tiny lasers built into the back of the car, near the plate, so that they cannot take a picture of your plate when you drive too fast. of course, also these are illegal.

Yes, keep it simple. by Gordonjcp · 2003-12-30 00:39 · Score: 1

My car has no electronics whatever (well, I think the rev counter might have some electronics). Let's see them stop that.

Re:Yes, keep it simple. by ajs318 · 2003-12-30 01:48 · Score: 1

Depends if or not you filled the tyres with expanding polyurethane foam {sold -- in a can with a tyre valve connector -- at motor accessory stores, for repairing punctures} before you started. I'm sure there must already be some sort of "honeycomb" tyre already available for extreme situations where you might get a puncture but still need to be able to run for several kilometres.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Yes, keep it simple. by Gordonjcp · 2003-12-30 01:57 · Score: 1

Actually, certain Michelin tyres can run flat *anyway* - there is a thick rib inside the sidewall that supports the tyre when it's moving. There was a guy on the Citroen XM mailing list who drove 240 miles with a completely deflated rear tyre before he noticed. The handling of the car was unaffected (although that's probably more down to the suspension).

They only want this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:39 · Score: 0

because they are so shit at driving! Seriously, UK police have practically no training (worth speaking of) for high speed persuits. Recently some forces have admitted as such and have stopped exceeding 30 miles per hour.

Re:They only want this by CmdrGravy · 2003-12-30 00:45 · Score: 1

That's total rubbish, Police Pursuit drivers in the UK have to undergo very rigourous training before they are allowed to actually pursue anyone.
Re:They only want this by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2003-12-30 00:47 · Score: 1

Seriously, UK police have practically no training (worth speaking of) for high speed persuits

Yes, and they have to do high speed pursuits on the wrong side of the road, driving in the passenger seat. Scary country if you ask me ...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:They only want this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:01 · Score: 0

Reminds me of those immensely reckless supercriminals who dare to blast away at *gasp* 100 miles per hour in COPS..
Re:They only want this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:07 · Score: 0

>That's total rubbish, Police Pursuit drivers in the UK have to undergo very
>rigourous training before they are allowed to actually pursue anyone.

Yes, and the number of people they kill every year is testament to the uselessness of the training. Speeding and killing people so they can catch burlgars who are stealing because the drugs they need are illegal and therefore expensive? Hmm..I think I can see a solution to this...
Re:They only want this by darien · 2003-12-30 01:15 · Score: 1

Yes, and the number of people they kill every year is testament to the uselessness of the training.

Or it could be testament to the fact that most British cities predate cars, and have smaller, busier, twistier roads than the US, running closer to centralised pedestrian areas, of which there are more than the US.
Re:They only want this by GTRacer · 2003-12-30 02:45 · Score: 1

Amen, brotha'...
Every time I need to get across town in a hurry, I keep getting held up by tiny one-lane roads or unbelievable roundabouts. Of course, having Yardies on my ass the whole time doesn't help. And the coppers get all bent when I have to run a Triad down to stop him shooting at me!
I'd probably do better if I'd give up stealing BT vans in a moronic attempt to infiltrate Snow Hill...
GTRacer
- It's The Getaway. Laugh.

--
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Re:They only want this by randomblast · 2003-12-30 03:00 · Score: 1

americans 8-)

--
...these aren't my real teeth.
Re:They only want this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:13 · Score: 0

"Yes, and the number of people they kill every year is testament to the uselessness of the training"

How about the fact that more of those people are killed by the people that are running from the police. What would you rather do ? Have criminals know that they can get away if they run fast enough? There's a really good idea!
Way to go Einstein!! Got any other incredibly stupid ideas you can help sharing?
Re:They only want this by CmdrGravy · 2003-12-30 10:15 · Score: 1

How many people are killed in police pursuits each year, do you know ? Since you also know for sure that all the people the police are chasing are drug addicts escaping from burgaled houses to fund their habits you probably do.

You don't actually specify the soloution you've seen but judging from your post I expect you'd like to suggest the police parked their cars formed a ceremonial salute to the thieves as they kick the crap out of their victims and speed off, later the police would no doubt award some kind of prize for whichever criminal drove the safest during their escape.

Regardless of whether you think drugs should be legalised or not you must realise that burglary, theiving, car jacking and armed robbery are crimes and that the police have a role to play in society preventing criminal and anti social behaviour.

The police aren't 'killing' the people they are pursuing they are chasing them, if the 'unfortunate victims' stopped their cars and gave themselves up they wouldn't run the risk of dying, if however the police simply gave up the chase and let them drive off into the sunset then you can bet that sooner or later an innocent member of the public will end up getting run over and killed by some maniac who is able to behave how he likes on the road.

Finally most police forces will not allow untrained officers to chase anyone and they will call off the chase if it is endangering members of the public. Last year there were 91 deaths during police chases in the UK, 90% of those were caused by the criminal and not the police.

Not a Trivial Pursuit anymore by riqnevala · 2003-12-30 00:41 · Score: 2, Funny

"Oh my god! They are getting away by bicycles! Now what do we do?"

--
love slashdot. populate it. use it. abuse it. hate it. kill it. miss it. stop following links, they only kill servers.

DIY Fuel Injection by femto · 2003-12-30 00:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

By putting forward such a suggestion, police and politicians are only demonstrating an ignorance of technology.

The computer which controls the engine of a car is not rocket science. There a projects in existence to build Do-It-Yourself Electronic Fuel Injection computers. In addition, a standard piece of auto electrician kit is a small box which provides a set of fixed strobes to drive the fuel injectors, allowing a car with broken (or disabled) EFI to drive away (with potentially reduced performance). The circuit is not much more than a 555 timer driving a few flip-flops. Ultimately, any criminal can easily find a substitute for the 'standard' EFI controller in a car, thus bypassing any disabling features.

This leaves honest people as the only ones susceptible to a 'remote control for cars'. Consequently the only real use for such a feature would be to simplify life for car-jackers.

Re:DIY Fuel Injection by Technician · 2003-12-30 01:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why bother. All that is really needed is to harden the system so it is oblivious to the external environment. It's kind of like using a PC when the network cable is disconnected. Hackers have a very hard time using the trojan planted on the machine.

Find the external controlling link and disable it.

It may be nothing more than removing an antenna or powering down the signal receiver.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:DIY Fuel Injection by Politburo · 2003-12-30 04:08 · Score: 1

If a device disabled the car, you would want it to seriously disable the car. I.E. one would not want to be able to flip a switch: car off, then flip a switch: car on. You would want it to be press a button: car off, intrusive procedure: car on. Carjacker wants to disable my car? He can have it. He just won't be able to move it.
Re:DIY Fuel Injection by tgd · 2003-12-30 07:01 · Score: 1

Or just buy a car thats old enough to run on carbs.

My 911 has two wires going to the engine -- 12v power, and 12v to the starter. The car runs fine with the other two wires (oil pressure, oil temp) disconnected.

The problem with most modern cars where aftermarket EFI is concerned is that dash components often work via the ECU not direct sensor input. Ie, replace your engine ECU, lose your dash.

Most cars have a countermeasure to that... by FatSean · 2003-12-30 00:53 · Score: 1

they are able to accelerate faster and maintain a higher speed than the heavy police cruisers :)

Cop cars, despite the heavy duty suspension (in the US anyway) don't really handle all that well. The crook just needs to get far enough away into tight roads and lose 'em.

Can't out run the radio my ass, just lose 'em in a densely populated area and make a run for it.

--
Blar.

Re:Most cars have a countermeasure to that... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:56 · Score: 0

just lose 'em in a densely populated area and make a run for it.

Densely populated areas (commonly known as "cities") are where you find patrol helicopter, with the floodlight and all.
Re:Most cars have a countermeasure to that... by princewally · 2003-12-30 02:49 · Score: 1

The interceptor that I had handled amazingly well. It cornered like a dream and could hit 150 mph.

--

-
"Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
Re:Most cars have a countermeasure to that... by FatSean · 2003-12-30 04:17 · Score: 1

Probably wasn't weighed down with all the police gear...most cop trunks I've seen (and not from the back seat either :) ) are filled with electronic gadgets and all sorts of equipment they need to do their job.

--
Blar.

Diana by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:54 · Score: 0

In Japanese TV we just saw how they did that using a Merzedes Benz S600 and a laptop. Cool.
THE MI5 and 6 in the UK has this technology and was apparntly order by thge english quene to top the motor inside of a tunel in France. I am not sure if the is trueth but nice story.

Re:Diana by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:55 · Score: 0

Occam's Razor forces me to believe the drunk chauffeur overestimated the handling characteristics of a Mercedes limosuine. The drunk Arab stroked his ego, encouraging him to go faster. Those cars are nice, but they don't handle like rally racers. No way this was an assassination. Nobody in that car was important, just rich and famous.

Flasher by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 00:56 · Score: 0

Give me one of these russian flash so that their driver can't see as revenge.

Too many problems. by Qubed · 2003-12-30 00:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Besides all the aforementioned problems (most notably hacking), people dislike having their control and sovreignity taken away from them. It doesn't sit well with most to know that any second they could no longer be in control of something that is theirs. In addition to this, imagine a system like this malfunctioning for some reason. No good can come of that. Then there's also the problem of corruption, and economics and business politics. Who's going to pay the automakers to install these devices in their vehicles? What do the automakers get out of doing this? How do you standardize something like this? Is everyone in the UK going to have their car taken into the shop and have one of these devices installed? What sort of system of regulated checks will exist to oversee the functionality of this tractor beam system? The list goes on. Hold it to a plebiscite, I doubt it will stand.

Re:Too many problems. by Ataru · 2003-12-30 01:05 · Score: 1

"no longer be in control of something that is theirs"

Precisely. If my car was nicked, I wouldn't want the villains to be in control of it, and I'd welcome the chance for the fuzz to bring it to a controlled stop. I'd not give a flying f##k about the bad guys' likes and dislikes.

There are always downsides to this kind of thing, but I don't see why they couldn't be solved in principle.
Re:Too many problems. by ckaminski · 2003-12-30 01:46 · Score: 0, Redundant

Right, except your car was nicked in the first place by a criminal with a "car remote", and he disabled it immediately after stabbing you and leaving you for dead.
Re:Too many problems. by Sesostris+III · 2003-12-30 01:49 · Score: 1

I gather (from the article) that some cars already have immobilisers that can be triggered if the car is stolen, and that some lorries have speed limiters. It seems some of the technology is there and already in use!

Also, according the the article, "experts" believe the technology could start to be used voluntarily by the end of the decade. That is quite some time away! Plenty of time to refine the technology.

It also seems that the politicians would want guarantees on safety, etc., before allowing the technology to be implemented.

As to holding a peblicite, I doubt the people would bother to vote! Our (the UK's) record on percentage turnout is nearly as bad as the US's! If they did, they would probably be in favour of anything that the politicians promise would "reduce crime".

--
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
Re:Too many problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:50 · Score: 0

No, I'd want the villains who stole it to be monitored and stopped remotely. I thought I made that pretty clear.
I have insurance. But I like my car. Maybe you don't like yours and you would like another one. Each to his own.
It doesn't "clear anything up". You have your opinion, I have mine.
- Ataru
Re:Too many problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:54 · Score: 0

Right, except he wouldn't have known the correct crypto key, and it couldn't be disabled without ripping out half of the engine.
I mean, they wouldn't have thought of that sort of thing in the first discussions about it, oh no. Because everyone except you is stupid, right?
Re:Too many problems. by cyt0plas · 2003-12-30 04:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

So go buy one of these on your own. There is no reason to have it forced on the rest of us.

--
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Re:Too many problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:48 · Score: 0

"[E]xcept he wouldn't have known the correct crypto key"

You're new here, aren't you?
Re:Too many problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:09 · Score: 0

No. Care to expand?
Re:Too many problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:14 · Score: 0

Well, it certainly would be desirable to some people, the sort of people that use Tracker right now. People with exotic supercars and top end Mercs and all that. But obviously those are not the cars the fuzz want to stop very often. More likely it's Vauxhall Belmonts, Astras and Novas.

I wondered why they didn't do it fifteen years ago by BlueCoder · 2003-12-30 01:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

It would have been trivial to design a monitor and for digitally controlled cars to control speed with little more than basic cell and pager technology. You install reciever stations, preferably as often as trafic lights or every few miles on highway, then install a black box in every car. Guess what, no more speeding as it would be inposable to go over the speed limit. You also instantly know when vehicles make illegal turn. No illegal parking. No getaway cars. And you can find cars with disabled systems. All of this using 1985 technology. Sure it would be expencive to install the infrastructure at first but you theoretically save money by not having to pay trafic cops and meter maids.

The real reason it did not happen is not because trafic cops would be out of work, they would be actually be transfered and start dealing with real crime which the public I think would gladly fund this system in exchange for. The real reason is that local cities would lose a large portion of their budgets. You see trafic tickets are a big fund raiser for many local cities. With a system as I discribed 99% of people would be incapable of speeding due to modern electronicly control cars, and the other 1% would knew when they are speeding and so would trafic computer that would instantly send you a ticket. There would be no speeding. There would be no illegal parking. There would be no money for many local projects and or saleries for public servents.

Re:UK != England by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:01 · Score: 0

Parent was bang on topic. Moderation was way off, as usual.
Fact is this is particularly relevant as this is just a report from a small sction of the UK police, and not representative of UK police strategy as a whole; just as the californian police version is not representative of US police stategy as a whole.

Money better spent.. by CompWerks · 2003-12-30 01:03 · Score: 1

would be on a force field, innocent people wouldn't get killed by drunk drivers and idiots that run from the cops couldn't hurt anyone.

Of course a large majority of lawyers would be out of business, which I guess would be another plus.

--
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.

Remote Control of Traffic Signals by bmsleight · 2003-12-30 01:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

..First remote controls to change signal-lights..

They do not exist, it not technically possible.

I am a UK Traffic Signals Engineer. The nearest thing you can have is a Bus Beacon, so the traffic signals see think you are a Bus and try to give you priority (a green signal) as soon as possible,

The bus beacons are becoming more sophisticated , so you have to know what Bus route number to emulate and how to emulate a empty Bus.

Even when you know the MIB its not practical, by the times you have reconfigured your Bus Beacon it will be a green signal anyway.

Re:Remote Control of Traffic Signals by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:14 · Score: 0

"They do not exist, it not technically possible."

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000464 .h tml

Seems for a "Traffic Signals Engineer" you aren't up on your field. Perhaps that is like a "Sanitation Engineer"... you simply clean the lenses on the lights? Of course, I jest.

Do you mean that it isn't possible in the UK because this doesn't exist there? Or do you stick with your general statement that they do not exist?
Re:Remote Control of Traffic Signals by darien · 2003-12-30 01:41 · Score: 1

Presumably the former. Jeez, give the guy a break. There's no shortage of people on here who talk like the US is the only country in the world. No need to get arsey because someone made the same mistake in a different direction for once.
Re:Remote Control of Traffic Signals by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:15 · Score: 0

I figured as much (being the former)... but to be emphatic isn't just a "US" thing. You can be emphatic in any language (except heiroglyphics (if that is a language)).

I am not dogging the dude, just clarifying the statement. Kinda like if I said that "Noone speaks Swahili" (only meaning that noone I know speaks it).

Anyway, you get the idea.
Re:Remote Control of Traffic Signals by Firethorn · 2003-12-30 03:57 · Score: 1

If you'd paid attention to earlier articles, you would have seen that in many US counties, there is an 'emergency vehicle' override switch on many red lights. As this is activated without a physical connection (by a strobe), it is a remote control. Just a very very basic one. There is a lower priority equivalent to your bus beacon, but the sheer cost of changing to a different system slows upgrades to a crawl. So the system remains unsecure for the most part. One of the (cheap) solutions is to make it into a 4 way stop, so anybody spoofing it still faces the illegality of running a red light. But this makes it more difficult for the emergency vehicles, because then they have to deal with stopped traffic.

And why wouldn't a remote control for a traffic light be technically possible? We control far more complicated resources remotely with a $5 remote.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Remote Control of Traffic Signals by bmsleight · 2003-12-30 05:10 · Score: 1

Sorry the articale was about UK traffic police. Thats why i put _UK_ in the response.
In the UK you can not get remote control of traffic signsls.
I shall avoid starting a flame war on UK vs. USA traffic signal engineering ;-)
Hey like an early response said the world is not jsut USA/UK/Europe.

Re:they will create the car buster.... by Technician · 2003-12-30 01:08 · Score: 1

car buster buster

You mean as in a tear away trunk?

Lizards have had break-away tails. Building cars the same could be fun. Adding a little skunk gland to the mix could be fun. A sulphur dioxide baggie just inside the trunk could be interesting if punctured at close range on a highway.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Problems with limiting your speed. by jellomizer · 2003-12-30 01:11 · Score: 0, Redundant

I don't know about you but I do a fair amount of driving on the interstate and there are a lot of times where I need to speed past the limit (like over 85-90 mph) just to drive safely (And I am defiantly not a speed demon). There are times when there is a vehicle behind me tailgating me so I need to get into the next lane. But the car in the adjacent lane sees me about to pass him so they figure that they are driving to slow so they match my speed preventing me from getting into the other lane. So slowing down is not an option so in order for me to be in a safe driving position I need to speed up to pass that stupid driver. And usually after 80-85 the other guy realizes that he is speeding so he finally backs off. With limiters like that (say placed on the speed limit signs) will basically keep me stuck in the lane unable to exit because there will be a car behind me preventing me from slowing down and on my side preventing me from moving to an other lane.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:Problems with limiting your speed. by tommck · 2003-12-30 01:26 · Score: 1

Wouldn't the speed limiter on his car prevent him from tailgating in the first place (he'd have to go faster than you to catch up, right?)?

I assumed that if this kind of technology existed, they'd also adapt the I'm-backing-up-beep-when-I'm-going-to-hit-somethin g sensor to attach to the front bumper and disallow tailgating (auto-apply breaks, etc)...

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

Better luck next time by TopShelf · 2003-12-30 01:18 · Score: 2, Funny

But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch and use my speed to go downhill?

Um, this is in England, right? I don't think you'll get too far, then. It's not like driving on a highway through the mountains...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch by Gordonjcp · 2003-12-30 01:20 · Score: 1

And don't forget that ABS can't actually *apply* the brakes, unless your foot is hard on the pedal. It can only work with the pressure in the system. Even the "emergency braking assist" on some modern cars relies on pedal pressure. Old Citroens use fully powered brakes - more like air brakes, with the pedal controlling a valve that lets high pressure hydraulic oil from an engine-driven pump through. Even so, they need control pressure from the brake valve before the ABS unit will apply the brakes.

Exactly the problem with Non-Lethals by TheLoneCabbage · 2003-12-30 01:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Look I'm all for finding ways of policing that don't end in needless death. But this is what we all feared would happen as Non-Lethal weapons started croping up.

There is no fear of using this!

Mass intrusion into your rights as an individual bassed soley because it "can be done" and because it "makes the job of law enforecment easier".

This is going to get more and more common as computers come to control everything. If those computers are mandated to obey master systems then imagine the kind of problems that could arise. Not only from hackers or common crooks that come to take advantage of the standardized technology, but how EASY it becomes to implement gov't controls into our lives. See: Patriot Act If this tech was in the public consiousness before 911 how long do you think it would take to make it a law?

I'm not advocating moving to the hills and shunning technology. What I am saying is that as the computer becomes the network, and the network finds it's way into everything, we have to start asking serious ethical questions like: What will this add to my life, and what will it take away? Is it worth it?

--
I would rather be ashes than dust!

Boost for the auto industry by panurge · 2003-12-30 01:22 · Score: 1

I guess the Sussex police have some wonderful scheme for preventing criminals from finding out that older cars will not be affected. That, or banning cars with mechanical control systems from the UK. They should get together with the British member of parliament who came up with the brilliant idea of abolishing spam by requiring all email addresses to carry the UK postcode of the originator, and start a think tank.

Seriously, why does anyone allow these m***ns to embarrass their colleagues by pronouncing on stuff they don't understand?

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.

Re:Boost for the auto industry by Wardish · 2003-12-30 02:24 · Score: 1

*chuckle* If politician's just talked about what they know it would be a much quieter world...

Hey! Where's my thorazine!!!

--
Ward

. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .

Drive a kit car, or older car by 192939495969798999 · 2003-12-30 01:22 · Score: 1

the solution is so easy: just get a car that either is incapable of being influenced by the technology, or is too old to get an upgrade, i.e. classic cars. No one's gonna install that in a 600-hp modified '57 chevy hot rod while the owner's still alive.

--
stuff |

UK's most frequently stolen vehicle by scottme · 2003-12-30 01:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

according to The Guardian is the 1986 Vauxhall Belmont.

I can see the owners of those lining up to get one of these remote controllers fitted (not).

Newer vehicles are much less frequently stolen, presumably because it's getting much harder, what with improved central locking, engine management systems that mean you can't hot-wire the thing, and other anti-theft features. A spokesperson in the linked Guardian article is quoted as saying "it is virtually impossible to steal a new car without access to the correct keys."

I don't buy the argument that this remote control idea has much if anything to do with wanting to make it easier for police to stop joyriders. It won't help for the reasons above - joyriders don't, or simply can't steal the kinds of cars that have this technology on board.

It sounds to me like just another attempt to turn us all into good docile law-abiding consumers.

Re:UK's most frequently stolen vehicle by Tassach · 2003-12-30 06:56 · Score: 1

A spokesperson in the linked Guardian article is quoted as saying "it is virtually impossible to steal a new car without access to the correct keys."
On which planet? Now if they said "it is virtually impossible to hot-wire a new car without the correct keys", there might have been a germ of truth to that statement. There are other ways to steal a car without having to drive it away. The organized car theives (as opposed to the casual joy-riders) will keep on using tow trucks to haul their booty away to the chop-shop. An organized car theft ring will have the car stripped and the incriminating bits dumped somewhere before the owner even notices that their car is missing.
It's a popular misconception that professional car thieves target high-end luxury vehicles. Nothing can be further from the truth. People who make their living stealing cars know that a car is worth several times as much when broken down into parts than it is sold whole. Therefore, they steal the cars for which there is a high demand for cheap parts -- older, popular, mid-range family cars (as the linked article states). There's not as much demand for used luxury car parts, because there are fewer luxury cars on the road, and the people who own them are more likely to demand new parts.

--
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?

A better idea is by 3lb4rt0 · 2003-12-30 01:25 · Score: 1, Funny

to create a remote control to turn of car stereos.

duhduhDUHDUHDUHDUHduhduhDUHDUHDUHduhduh

STFU car!!!

Re:A better idea is by tommck · 2003-12-30 01:29 · Score: 1

At first, my visual spam filter (too many caps, etc.) made me skip this post. Then, I read it anyway (it was at the bottom of my screen)...

You're absolutely right. I wish they'd add decibel meters to police cars and they'd ticket people for noise pollution more often. It's ridiculous that someone else's car can rattle my windows in traffic.

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:A better idea is by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:42 · Score: 0

The noise doesn't bother me as much as the realization that a certain subset of the population is going to have severe hearing loss.

FBI cracks down on book owners by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:27 · Score: 0

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/12/29/fbi/inde x.html

A spokesman said "It's long been a cliche that a little knowledge can be dangerous....some of these books, especially almanacs and dictionaries take this problem into a whole new ball park."

Re:FBI cracks down on book owners by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:31 · Score: 0

LOL!!! Even Associated Press couldn't believe it!

"The Associated Press obtained a copy of the bulletin this week and verified its authenticity."

You Americans really crack me up! "Land of the free", right? You guys need a new slogan! Oh, and a national diet. And I don't mean MacShit burgers and coke.
Re:FBI cracks down on book owners by ajs318 · 2003-12-30 01:42 · Score: 1

That is a joke, isn't it?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:FBI cracks down on book owners by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:48 · Score: 0

> That is a joke, isn't it?

Ok, I'll own up to faking the quote. I should have quoted from the article itself. Apparantly it's for real. At least, *I'm* not making it up. Expect to see this story hit the mainstream media soon, if it's real. With 1 day to go, this has become my favourite 9/11-related hysterical nonsense story of 2003! God bless America!
Re: FBI cracks down on book owners by bezuwork's+friend · 2003-12-30 03:17 · Score: 1

Washington Post Article

It already happens by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:31 · Score: 0

In Washington DC when the orange alert hit last week in certain areas they were stopping everyone at random and searching their cars. No suspicion of anything, just fishing.

Welcome to Amerika.

Re:It already happens by velo_mike · 2003-12-30 01:51 · Score: 1

In Washington DC when the orange alert hit last week in certain areas they were stopping everyone at random and searching their cars. No suspicion of anything, just fishing. Welcome to Amerika.

Da, and the system is good, no?
I've been out of the country for the last few years, due to come back in july. While I've tried to keep up, I'm left wondering how many things like this will surprise me.

--
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
Re:It already happens by fishbowl · 2003-12-30 05:03 · Score: 1

December 26th, "They" were searching every car going into the Hotel Bellaggio (in Las Vegas, NV, USA). It took more than an hour to get in.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:It already happens by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:59 · Score: 0

Why would you come back? You are FREE. Don't throw your life away by returning to America!

another system already in use in some parts by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:33 · Score: 0

The police routinely leave cars lying around which look good targets to steal, they just wait until it's broken into, then when the car drives away they disable it and lock the person in it, then just come pick the bugger up!

Re:another system already in use in some parts by 3lb4rt0 · 2003-12-30 01:39 · Score: 2, Informative

In my town the police routinely leave cars lying around stolen and crashed and take no action until they're torched.

They don't lock up the buggers who do it.

why don't they by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:35 · Score: 0

just fit the cars with explosives? any forker that tries getting away will be blown to pieces regardless, messy...

OnStar anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:41 · Score: 0

"yes bob.. you locked yourself out of your car.. no problem.. let me unlock the doors"

"Yes officer.. that vehicle is equipped with onstar.. it's been stolen.. i'll disable it now.."

and you thought it was for YOUR safety.. pfft.. HAHAHAHA

Red Barchetta by Kernel+Kurtz · 2003-12-30 01:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

For any Rush fans out there, the future sounds all too familiar.

grumble grumble... by tuxette · 2003-12-30 01:46 · Score: 1

(Yeah, I know this is getting a bit off topic)

Of course I meant foresight. Excuse me while I scuffle to the corner and put on my dunce cap :-/

--
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...

Re:UK != England by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:49 · Score: 0

Of course, it might just be called that because it was sponsored by the World newspaper originally. But why let the facts spoil a joke, eh?

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch by ldspartan · 2003-12-30 01:49 · Score: 1

Most modern truck air brakes are maxi-brakes, which means if they lose air pressure they slowly apply towards full force. The air actually keeps the brake off :). It would be trivial to install a high pressure solenoid actuated valve to bleed the air out of the brake system in this case. A bad idea, but trivial. Hydraulic car brakes would be much harder to do this with.

--
lds

Oh crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 01:49 · Score: 0

Now, not only will car jackers be able to open my locked doors using hacked OnStar, they will also be able to stop my attempts to flee by turning off my engine using the UK thingamajig!

Wait...I have a '65 Mustang. Thank God for cars without computers!!

Thank you! by aurelian · 2003-12-30 01:50 · Score: 1

The one insightful comment so far in this entire discussion!

To the morons going on about how the criminals can hack the limiter on their cars in the safety of their own garages: yes we realise that, thanks. They can also install rocket-launchers and stinger missiles.

This is a solution to a _different problem_, e.g. when a criminal hijacks another car to escape. You're telling me he's going to spend five minutes dicking around under the car to disable the limiter first? Get a fucking clue!

Re:Thank you! by Tony+Hoyle · 2003-12-30 02:08 · Score: 1

No, he's going to carry an RF tranmitter that swamps the signal from the persuing police car. Just transmitting a carrier would do (although a bit of white noise can't help).

Within weeks of this stuff going into cars the countermeasures will be available - it's kiddie electronics to build one.

Bah, why install things in every car? by bobthemuse · 2003-12-30 01:55 · Score: 1

England's police force is lobbying to get a remote-control to stop other cars

What's wrong with the old idea of an EM Pulse Gun? Fry the car's electronics, kills the fuel injectors, stops the cars.

In all seriousness, the electronics described in the article would allow the cops to stop anyone for any reason, which is going to turn into harassment cases. Something which permanently disables the car is more likely to be used only in high speed chases and the like, where the cops are certain.

Re:Bah, why install things in every car? by panurge · 2003-12-30 02:50 · Score: 1

I would be interested to see what the EM pulse gun does to my old mechanical injection Diesel, which requires no electric power whatsoever to run (and, since it has stick shift, can even be push-started). My new variable wastegate turbo with solenoid controlled injection is, of course, another matter

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.

Car hacking... by BeerSlurpy · 2003-12-30 01:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

More mainstream than what? Automotive "hacking" has become so widespread that almost anyone who has a need and a few thousand dollars to spend on parts can "hack" their car's computer in every way imaginable.

I had to get a programmable (vs burning and soldering a new rom each time I changed the fuel or ign maps) ECU back when I added a turbo to my car.

Many of the best oem replacements are formerly what were known as "race computers" but are now often cheaper and much less complex than the stock computers they replace.

The "tractor beam" wont be stopping my car anytime soon, nor will it stop most of the cars out there capable of actually outrunning the police and their radios. And this doesnt even touch on cars that dont have extensive computerization like pre-efi Camaros. Daddy's camaro is probably carbeurated and uses a mechanical system for adjusting ignition timing. The cops would be better off just waiting for it to run out of gas.

Re:Car hacking... by IvoryRing · 2003-12-30 02:44 · Score: 1

Wow... you can outrun police radio in your car? Now if only there was a highway to Mars, you could could get a job with Apple and do the service.

I know what you ment, it just struck me as funny. And yes, I do realize you didn't quite state that you can outrun the police.

And worst case, police can always wait for you^H^H^Hhypothetical fleers (sp? that can't be right) to run out of gas/solar/hydro/french-fry-oil/banana-peels[That's Mr Fusion to you buddy!].
Re:Car hacking... by geekoid · 2003-12-30 05:51 · Score: 1

"..and their radios. "

Important safety tip: this device will not work on vehicals going faster then light.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Before Bush.... by jotaeleemeese · 2003-12-30 01:57 · Score: 1

... it wouldhave been a joke.

Now in 1984 it is a wise inciative to fight our enemies.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Old cars... by dentar · 2003-12-30 02:02 · Score: 1

will get more and more popular!

--
-- I am. Therefore, I think!

This is a Good idea by Beliskner · 2003-12-30 02:04 · Score: 0

The purchaser of the vehicle would have the Right to disable such a device just like you have the Right to do whatever with a DVD you have purchased - think DeCSS. Already people do drag-racing and fit turbochargers with custom Engine Management Systems to their vehicles, they'll quickly learn how to deal with these devices.

If a Magistrate ordered a car stopped after looking at a real-time video feed via satellite/cellular from the scene of the incident, most people wouldn't mind that because then the police wouldn't have the arbitrary power to stop any vehicle anywhere such as the fast lane or whilst going around a mountainous curve, it would be up to the Magistrate.

GM, Ford, etc. already store car key immobiliser encryption codes which are needed to make spare keys. I'm sure they can also store your vehicle's Engine Management System Private key which can be used to calculate a timestampted engine-off signal to remotely override your vehicle's ignition computer with a Magistrate-authorised signal sent via INMARSAT/IRIDIUM or cellular. The vehicle's Engine Management System would then calculate whether the decrypted engine-off signal hashes to the current time (so that engine-off signals issued in the past cannot disable a vehicle in the future). If it checks out the Engine Management System will shut down and maybe then pop a thermal switch or two.

In Europe, there's a massive problem with drug dealers carjacking luxury cars such as Mercedes S-class and Audi S4, driving them at >190mph to bust through police checkpoints and get to drug-dealer ghettos. This will worsen as vehicles get faster and run-flat tyres become popular

There's a huge problem with car theft in the UK, we've got lots of bored teenagers, but at least they don't gang-bang yet like across the pond, there aren't enough guns here for that yet. The thing is they tend to only steal older cars that use carburation (no EMS). This system would therefore be aimed at professional criminals or people running away from the Law. If Linus, Alan Cox and Stallman were shot by a carjacker who then drove off at speed, we'd all change our minds about these technologies.

--
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?

Another reason to maintain your old cars by Presence1 · 2003-12-30 02:04 · Score: 1

Obviously, these idiot police are not looking out to protect and serve the freedom of the people that hire them, only to make some visible part of their jobs easier -- in short, petty people wanting more control.

This will simply engender another hack by the criminals, which will leave them immune, but the general public ever more subject to excess police control.

Soooo, best to find good car from the 90s that you like, in good condition, and start maintaining it for the long term....

Of coruse, the real fun begins when we hack into the system so we can control it. The cops would need to leave this enabled on their cars, for the cases where someone steals a police car ... so who needs radar detectors and jammers when we can just slow the pursuing police car?

A goverment put in place by the populace. by jotaeleemeese · 2003-12-30 02:05 · Score: 1

That is what completes the full context of the situation.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Dammit Jim! by thepuma · 2003-12-30 02:10 · Score: 1, Funny

I'm a doctor, not a mechanic!

- McCoy

--

Free your ecomony and enact the FairTax

Felony to disable by nurb432 · 2003-12-30 02:14 · Score: 1

Its called interfering with the law.. and would get you jail time.

How would they know? All the road embedded sensors for starters...

Bigger question is if older cars will be grand fathered, or just be denied access to the roads as being an 'unsafe vehicle'..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Felony to disable by I8TheWorm · 2003-12-30 02:18 · Score: 1

Its called interfering with the law.. and would get you jail time.

Are you suggesting that jail time is a deterrant for car jackers?

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:Felony to disable by gcaseye6677 · 2003-12-30 03:25 · Score: 1

I'm sure that part of the disabling hack would include fooling the sensors into thinking the device is working. That's the problem with this type of system, it would only work if the technology was 'guaranteed unhackable'. While that may make a nice sounding marketing term, you could not seriously make this claim about very many electronic devices.

It will never happen. by Dutchmaan · 2003-12-30 02:20 · Score: 1

One police take control of a vehicle then they would be liable for any damages or deaths that occur because of that vehicle.. "It wasn't my fault your honor... *the police did it*"

My Gramps in WWII by mekkab · 2003-12-30 02:22 · Score: 1

(don't worry, this is On Topic!)

He was stationed in Hawai'i (Barking Sands, Kaua'i) and was tight with the upper-ups and the motor pool, so he got to use a jeep under the auspices of the colonel. Those army jeeps had a "governor"- a block triangle (kinda like a door stop) that would prevent you from putting the accelerator down all the way. My grandfather would have nothing to do with it- so being the ingenious carpenter that he is (olde sk00l hacker) he removed it.

So, you want to add whizzbang electronics to slow me down? Fat chance. I come from a long line of hackers who like to drive fast*. I dare you to stop me! I'll see your Orwellian leanings and raise you my EE and CS degrees.

(*speaking of which, I must remember to pay for that speeding ticket...)

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

Re:My Gramps in WWII by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 0

There is a world of difference between modifying the carb and throttle linkage on a WWII jeep, and modifying a digital circuit which has no discrete parts, no documentation, and is wholly encased in epoxy.

Eas of getting caught by nurb432 · 2003-12-30 02:29 · Score: 1

When the chance of getting caught is almost 100%, yes it would deter.

Once most every major road has sensors / cameras ( yes, it will be a while, mostly just toll roads and a few inner city roads have them now ) the chance of getting caught will rise to the point that the jail time threat will make an impact..

Its all a matter of percentages.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Eas of getting caught by I8TheWorm · 2003-12-30 02:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let me correct you, in that nothing has anywhere near a 100% chance of getting caught. While in the short term all a car jacker has to do is avoid the few spots with sensors, someone will devise a way to send a signal showing the system is still active. All you'd need to know is the proper ACK response.

On top of that, it might induce more violence. If the cops are threatening to stop me after stealing this car, maybe if I keep the passenger and threaten to kill them, the police will reconsider.

It's a nice thought to give the police officers another tool to prevent crime/accidents/unnecessary deaths, but it's a short sighted implementation, and one that I think would easily be thwarted by the criminals.

No law has ever deterred crime, nor any punishment, nor has any technological implementation. OnStar has been around for a few years in the States, and vehicles with it are still stolen quite often. Chance of getting caught, extremely high, but that doesn't stop the crooks.

--
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Re:Eas of getting caught by Thomas+Shaddack · 2003-12-30 02:40 · Score: 1

Suggestion: Unless there will be a challenge-response scheme, this will be susceptible to replay attack. The detector gets the response it wants, it passes you as the car you met at the detector yesterday. I don't suppose the first versions will be designed as too secure.
The basic rule with machine checkpoints is to tell the machine what it wants to hear.

Re:UK != England by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:40 · Score: 0

The World series gets its name from the newspaper that sponsered it at the start, The World.

I hate stupid fellow English people

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch by Thomas+Shaddack · 2003-12-30 02:42 · Score: 1

Easy to rectify: hack the car's firmware so it doesn't allow third party's control. Or use a car with good old mechanic clutch, with no pesky electronics in the way (a brute-force option).

Too complicated...use a car-poon by rfischer · 2003-12-30 02:42 · Score: 1

Police in northern Finland have come up with a whale of a plan for stopping speeders: a police car with a harpoon.
The car was developed by police in Oulu, 380 miles north of Helsinki. They're seeking government approval to put it into regular use.
"We were fed up with not being able to stop runaway drunk drivers or speeders," said Oulu police Sgt. Markku Limingoja, who designed the device. "This harpoon will bring them to an abrupt halt with a bang and not a whimper."
Unlike a traditional harpoon, the road version is not fired. Instead, it is mounted on the police car's front bumper and pursuing officers ram it into the trunk of a fleeing car. It locks into place with hydraulically operated barbs and the runaway vehicle comes to a halt as the police car brakes.
Of course, the police car has to catch the fugitive before it can engage the harpoon. And some might consider the impact little different from a collision.
Sgt. Limingoja admitted there would be some risk associated with using the harpoon.
"There is a danger that the runaway car could jam on the brakes," he said. "Officers using the car will have to be well-trained so that they get a feel for it."

http://www.s-t.com/daily/08-96/08-21-96/a03wn014 .h tm#XINDEX3

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch by Thomas+Shaddack · 2003-12-30 02:44 · Score: 1

...and disabling this system then is about as difficult as pulling the connector from the solenoid. Or just dropping something corrosive on it couple weeks before, and then eventually blaming the falling-off wire on "natural causes" when eventually confronted by the police.

2004 by ajs318 · 2003-12-30 02:44 · Score: 1

I was thinking 2004 would be the year I go for my driving test. Now I know for certain what kind of vehicle I want to get myself when I do! It will have a Diesel engine with a mechanical fuel pump. Not only will it run fine on cookig oil, it will be immune to any attempt to jam it electronically. Since I'll be running it on non-fossil fuels, I'm not too worried about the extra CO2 emissions -- it's just was already there before the sunflowers were grown, after all.

Anyone know if you can get a Diesel engine onto a series I/II Landie? Or were they all petrol?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Re:2004 by panurge · 2003-12-30 02:59 · Score: 1

Of course you can fit a Diesel to a Series II Land Rover, but it will not run on cooking oil. The seals may fail and so may the injection pump. Also be prepared to run through loads of engine and gear oil, and have the roadholding of something that doesn't hold the road very well. Unless, like me, you *really needed* to be able to transport loads of logs over unmade roads for a few years, forget it.
(And the chance that the police will need remote control to stop you is also remote - you will need a calendar to measure the 0-60 time. I think too there is a solenoid operated cutoff valve that you would need to replace to avoid being stopped by an EMP weapon, but I may be remembering the wrong model.)

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.

mis-labeled article, RTFA! by natefanaro · 2003-12-30 02:46 · Score: 1

If you're going to say they want a tractor beam then try finding an article where thy at least use the words "tractor" and "beam." I got all excited because I thought there was going to be some good info on some new tractor beam technology, but no. It's an article where the police want life sized remote control cars.

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:47 · Score: 0

At the moment braking uses a force-boosted hydraulic system, as does power steering. However, luxury cars are now starting to do away with this; Mercedes have a car (I think it's the new SL600 but don't quote me) which has electronic brakes -- the four brake units are controlled independently by a computer. Another manufacturer (BMW if I remember right) has electronic 'fly by wire' steering system that allows you to make the same turn for the same wheel movement regardless of speed.

This kind of stuff won't appear in cheaper cars for some time, but all cars are gaining more electronics for safety, efficiency, performance and mechanical simplicity (before you flame me, think of the baroque carburettor and distributor system you'd need to replicate the functionality and flexibility of EFI and electronic ignition)

*Will* carry just in case? by nurb432 · 2003-12-30 02:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

You mean you are foolish enough to not drive around with some form of personal protection now?

Not a smart move in todays society.

The police are not there to "protect" you, they are there as a deterrantant, and to help clean up the mess afterwards..

Its your duty to protect yourself.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Automatic speed limit enforcement by Alien54 · 2003-12-30 02:54 · Score: 1

Seriously, the easier way for us to do this would be to put in RFID chips in markers in the roadway which the cars would read to automatically enforce speed limits, red lights, stop signs, etc. Then we could save money by cutting back on all of those traffic cops, because it would be impossible for people to get traffic tickets on those roads.

Of course, a similar technology could be developed for direct implantation into humans, but that is many years away.

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:Automatic speed limit enforcement by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:07 · Score: 0

Or we could just use TRAINS.
Re:Automatic speed limit enforcement by Grishnakh · 2003-12-30 14:57 · Score: 1

Trains don't travel to subdivisions, rural homes, and other areas with low population density. Let us know when you come up with another easy, simple solution to the world's problems.

It's called the US Constitution by leereyno · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

The founding fathers had it right over 200 years ago. They created a system of government based upon the rule of law where the power of the state was both limited and widely distributed between the local, state, and federal levels. The powers that would arise and attempt to subvert the system and take power for themselves were forced to fight with one another, thereby neutralizing them.

This system depends upon one thing more than any other, and that is an informed citizenry made up of individuals that make the preservation of freedom and individual sovereignty their personal responsibility. If the US were made up of people like this then what a glorious nation we would make.

Lee

--
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.

Re:It's called the US Constitution by Alric · 2003-12-30 04:22 · Score: 1

Some might argue that the US is made up of people just like you are describing, but the people are kept too busy by exploitive corporations and needless international toil. I try to maintain a distance from grand consipiracy theories. However, one must admit that it is somewhat difficult to rouse passion about civil rights when half of your friends are worried about friends and family fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan, and the other half are trying find some source of income to keep their families off the streets. Keep the masses too busy to notice the prison being built around them. Why do you think we Americans are so f'ing fat? Is it because we are such a happy, secure, and spiritually fulfilled people?

I too am a big supporter of keeping much power in the hands of state governments. There are problems with this though. First, there would be even more inequality among the states, with no Federal money to help smooth out the wrinkles. Second, there is the Wal-Mart effect; only the federal government has the influence to affect our huge, multi-national corporations.

Peace.
Re:It's called the US Constitution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:31 · Score: 0

This system depends upon one thing more than any other, and that is an informed citizenry made up of individuals that make the preservation of freedom and individual sovereignty their personal responsibility. If the US were made up of people like this then what a glorious nation we would make.

Not to be pessimistic or anything, but realistically if the nation were to be made entirely of people who make the preservation of freedom and individual sovereignty their personal responsibility then the nation would have to be manufacturing their people. At that point the issue of who has the power to subvert the constitution would be the least of humanity's problems.

Aarrgh, the clutch, you're doomed!! by SpaghettiPattern · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 1

the clutch
Boy clutches and shift-sticks are for commies and other thugs that don't abide no law. Besides that the use of the clutch as you describe is bound to be a DMCA violation!

Stick with good ole American automatic cars, Sony and Microsoft products and blue jeans. And don't forget to dedicate your prayers to the RIAA.

Hell you might even be saved one day.

--

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)

deterrantant??? by nurb432 · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 1

Man.. i really need to start proofreading for typos...

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Stupid idea. it's not like only cops can use it by Alcimedes · 2003-12-30 02:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

so how long until some enterprising thief figures out how it works, and makes their own. or, along the same lines, steals on from the police.

now you've got a crook who can disable any car at a whim. talk about your easy robbery. now just wait until that RX8 pulls around the corner, shut it off, throw the driver out and turn off your "tractor beam".

i wonder if the police have their liability war chest paid up. first time this happens they're going to get sued into oblivion, as well they should.

morons.

OnStar by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:57 · Score: 0

My wife's car came with OnStar, which I find kind of creepy. They can unlock (? lock) your car doors, diagnose car problems, tell you exactly where you are, and hear you talking inside the car, all from the comfort of their command post (wherever that is). Who knows, maybe they can already shut off your car or put on your brakes.

Random Quote by pvt_medic · 2003-12-30 03:01 · Score: 1

Well I guess this quote sums it up best
Custom Official: Have anything to claim?
Man: Yeah, dont go to england!

--
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll

Stupid. Bloody stupid. by jcr · 2003-12-30 03:07 · Score: 1

Right now, a perp with a car bomb can probably kill a couple of hundred people, max. The average for such attacks in Israel these days is more like five to ten dead.

A perp with access to a remote control system can crash all the cars that have been buggered with this Clever Technology.

So, now the Al-Queda perps just have to bribe somebody who works on the remote control system, and they can hijack cars and crash them at will!

Now, that's the way to foster confidence in the public, I must say!

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

I hope this comes to the US by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:08 · Score: 0

This is great news! I hope this comes to the US.

Those of us who collect classic cars just got a new boost in revenue stream. Our cars just jumped in value again.

Bling bling!

Make it easier for car jacker? Errm no. by paragon_au · 2003-12-30 03:11 · Score: 0

Lets think about this.

1. Honest citizen's car is stolen, has device in it.

2. Citizen report to police.

3. Police stop the car.

Oh yes much easier. Sure they could avoid it by taking it out, and replacing it. But last time I checked, a car jacker doesn't have time to do that after stealing a car.
(Tho a device that interferes with the transmitting could work).

There are already systems like this in place, so I agree it's not really necessary for the police to have this power. In the latest cars, the owner can stop it with a simple phone call and password.

Re:Make it easier for car jacker? Errm no. by riqnevala · 2003-12-30 08:06 · Score: 1
Lets think about this.
1. Honest citizen's car is stolen, has device in it.
2. Citizen report to police.
  maybe a few hours after it has been stolen?
3. Police stop the car.
  The device is already in the trashcan, replaced with another one.
Still prefer the HERF
--
love slashdot. populate it. use it. abuse it. hate it. kill it. miss it. stop following links, they only kill servers.

Here's a nightmare scenario... by eaolson · 2003-12-30 03:17 · Score: 1

This thing gets hacked such that it forces a minimum speed. Like a cruise control you can't shut off. Eeeek.

Subject is wrong by colk99 · 2003-12-30 03:23 · Score: 1

its technically not a tractor beam its more like remote control a tractor beam pulls something

But what about FOX? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:29 · Score: 0

How is FOX going to stay in business if they can't show all the idiots trying to flee from police?

NEXT! ON FOX! CRIMINALS TRY TO FLEE AND CAN'T!

Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Don't we already have this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:37 · Score: 1, Funny

Isn't this just an OnStar call away?

1. Car Stolen

2. Police (or Batman) call OnStar for location

3. Close in on unsuspecting crooks
4. Send OnStar command to engine computer to shut off fuel

5. Crooks lock doors to keep police (or Batman) out

6. {Fill in the blank}

7. No profit to crooks

8. Make new TV commercial about OnStar

9. Profit!

Same old liberal objections. by zihamesh · 2003-12-30 03:45 · Score: 1, Troll

As per usual, the civil liberty brigade are up in arms over what could actually be a beneficial weapon in the fight against crime. The same arguments were rolled out when identity card were proposed by the UK Government. i.e. "Its a bad idea because of problems x and y and z".

The question isn't whether taking control over speeding cars is good or bad, its "Will it make our streets safer ?"

For instance, if the number of deaths and injuries to innocent bystanders caused by drivers trying to outrun the police is less than the number who are killed or injured by the use of the technology then the answer to the question "Will it make our streets safer ?" is yes.

the solution by ChrisZuma · 2003-12-30 03:48 · Score: 0

Policemen all have guns. If they were as malicious and ill-contented as everyone is making them out to be, they would randomly shoot people for speeding in a school zone.
Do you know why they don't shoot out a red-light-runner's tires? because every time they pull that trigger they have toi fill out the biggest shitload of paperwork when they get back to the precinct. Hell, it requires a few forms even if they unholster it.
My solution to the car-stopping mechanism is to make the police officers fill out the same amount of paperwork as they do when they whip out a pistol and fire a round into all 4 of your tires.

--

~Chris Hammond

Dude! by Treacle+Treatment · 2003-12-30 03:49 · Score: 1

"But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch and use my speed to go downhill? "

All I can say is better hope the hill slopes the right direction. My guess is they'll haul out their trusty low tech "Tractor" beam and stop your sorry ass.

YMMV

--
TT

God Shave The Queen! by Testocles · 2003-12-30 03:53 · Score: 1

Sounds like a great idea!
Now we can hack the system, create a traffic jam when Queeny goes for a drive, stop her car, open the door, hand in the obligatory shaving device to her majesty, and shout with gusto and triamph "God Shave The Queen!" I just hope to duck fast enough when she reaches out to friggin Knight me!

I was just an old hot-rodder, by Jimee+D'Geek · 2003-12-30 04:07 · Score: 1

but now, by driving old cars, I'm on the bleeding edge of the new anti-technology movement!

this planet is starting to suck by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:08 · Score: 0

let's move on to the next one and start all over.

Older Cars? by EvilOpie · 2003-12-30 04:28 · Score: 1

The thing I'm curious about, is how this is expected to work on all cars. If it's a mechanical device that slows cars, then would it latch onto another car or something? If it's electronic (which I'm assuming it is) then how would this work on older cars that have mechanical systems controlling their engines, instead of electronic ones? After all, according to the linked article, it sounds like it depends on newer cars and electronic controlls for it to work.

The key is the electronics box in most new cars which, when the driver presses the accelerator or brake, sends a message to the engine to speed up or slow down. It can be programmed to limit the speed generally or according to the position of the car, established via a GPS satellite. For remote operation, a modem, which works like a mobile phone, can be used tell the car to slow down or stop.

Now granted, most cars on the road today are like this, but not all. I drive a 1986 Chevy Celebrity with a carbureted engine. When I step on the gas pedal, it pulls a cable that is attached to the engine at the carburetor. Since while electronics monitor my car's performance but don't directly control it, does this mean that my car would be immune to a device that would try and slow my car electronically? While I'm not sure if it would or wouldn't, it is an interesting thought to think about. Something like an EMP pulse would probably disrupt the electrical system enough to bring the car to a stop, but stalling the engine at say 65mph+ is not a good idea. You'd lose power steering and brakes, and in a manual transmission car you'd risk locking the wheels and losing control. So I'm still curious as to how this would work on all cars, new and old.

--
-Through the server, over the router, off the firewall... Nothing but 'Net!

I want a mansion and a yacht by Doc+Ruby · 2003-12-30 04:37 · Score: 1

UK police, no doubt, also want a hypnosis ray, the antiultraviolence therapy from _A Clockwork Orange_, and 50 weeks off in Ibiza. So what? They should be given netguns, sleeping gas, and the complete original Batman TV series on DVD.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:I want a mansion and a yacht by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:30 · Score: 0

Mods, please mod this for the troll that it is.

RTFA etc.
Re:I want a mansion and a yacht by Doc+Ruby · 2003-12-30 10:57 · Score: 1

Anonymous Coward pleads for a "Troll" mod on a simple sarcastic statement, after I RTFA. Why not just disagree in writing? With a real ID, rather than some faceless whining?

--
--
make install -not war

Good, it'll up the market for classics by bobalu · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 1

Cuz it ain't gonna stop my '68 Caddy! Of course given that it's 20 ft long, 4600lbs and has a 375 HP engine, not much would.

Now if I could just sell it for half of what I've got in it... :-)

--
The revolution will NOT be televised.

And the lawyers just get richer! by TacticalJack · 2003-12-30 04:39 · Score: 1

At least in the USofA. Just image all of the opportunities to sue the crap out of ppl. "I did not have control of my car, that is why I hit the other guy" ... "I tried to accelerate, but the car would not respond" My mind just reels with the number of possibilities! ;-)

Of course in England... I expect the "subjects" to just roll over as they have on so many other issues. Remember, in England, even "self defence" (note British spelling ;-)) is illegal! Cameras on every lamp post, manditory DNA banking (maybe soon), and on and on!

-TJ

--
Never under estimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes.

Fine if my speed limit is based on driving record by shpoffo · 2003-12-30 04:51 · Score: 1

I've been thinking of this whole "they'll control my car in the future" thing for a while - this debate has been coming as more and more cars become heavily computer integrated. What I would like is a variable speed limit. Since they have computers that talk to the computer in my car, they'll know how safely I've been driving and how well I can handle th car in a variety of evironmental conditions.

I can see a day when this kind of tech is used to slow down a car whose driver is exceeding their historical capabilities. The system should be clear about when the driver is in a 'training mode' condition - i.e. the car system is taking over to soem degree and limiting their speeds. There is a fuzzy edge for them to push that's mediated via nueral net trained to their driving record. This allows them to become a better driver in a range of conditions, and also removes the need for 'speed limits' since the limit would be the users on driving record. The more hours you've logged on the better a driver you'll be and your capabilities to drive will relect that. There will be rebuking from Police Officer unions as they're jobs change, but that's to be expected.

I'm hoping that this incorporation of technology also comes with BUILDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS INTO THE CAR'S DASHBOARD. Seriously, that has been a long time coming in this arena. A central server can mediate people's traffic signals at an intersection, allowing a smoother flow of traffic. Theoretically the system should be able to take complete control of my car and guide it through the intersection at what ever speed necessary.

This will freak people out at first because they'll fear suceeding their control, until they trust the system. Their fears will be mitigated by the suggetion that the process system will prevent driving accidents by intoxicated or otherwise inadequate drivers. Driving accidents/harm will move from unconscious violence (a person causes another harm because they don't value the other enough to make smart decisions about themselves) to malicious violence (a person hacks the system with the intention of causing direct harm to another). The first scenario is a systemic illness that we all work at - the latter scenario is a matter of authorities, good guys & bad guys, other easy human metaphors. I feel most people will choose the latter.

Beyond that? "Driving" somewhere where largely involve setting keypoints in a route and the servers will figure out a route based on preferences like 'scenic,' 'never beent hat way before,' 'fastest,' 'withing seepd range x-y,' or other criteria. 'Cars' will change to become more pleasure oriented - we've already seen the beginnings of it with video consoles built into headrests. Mass transportationwill operate the same, but you'll have to become better with personal scheduling to arrange route timings with the server that meet your needs. A variety of privatized 'mass transit' services will appear to suit various lifestyle and ultimately mass transit, as a public institution, will organize into a comglomeration of mostly-independent systems. The routes won't quite meet everyone's needs that those on the fringe will have to adapt - as always.

The rest of these tracks go off in other directions.....

-shpoffo

Um.. This is the UK.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:16 · Score: 0

Just pointing that out...

Consider learning about the flow of traffic. by Inoshiro · 2003-12-30 05:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

The flow of traffic is pretty neat. With "psychopathic tail-gaiting rigs, pickups, and SUVs" I just brake slam them until they go around. If they don't wish to drive properly behind me and give proper following distance (3 seconds), I don't want them behind me. If they haven't learned the lesson after 2 flashes + 1 really good slam (which usually has them swerving out of the way), I will stop the car until they pass me.

You don't have to play by their rules. Make your own up, as long as they match the posted speed limits (providing there aren't any extenuating circumstances). Keep your gates open, and you'll have about 4 choices of direction to go with your car should there be an emergency driving situation.

--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.

Re:Consider learning about the flow of traffic. by SavoWood · 2004-01-05 05:36 · Score: 1

1. "Brake checking" is dangerous, and illegal. You're intentionally attempting to cause an accident.

2. If you're in the left lane, not passing someone, you're wrong. You have no business in the left lane if you aren't actively engaged in passing another vehicle. There are exceptions like the idiotic left exits I see around the US, and if there's debris in the lane ahead of you should obviously go around it.

3. It's not a citizen's responsibility to enforce the speed limit. If someone is trying to go faster than you, they may have a legitimate reason. The best thing is to let them pass. They become RADAR fodder. The speed trap down the road will certainly nail them, and allow you to pass by peacefully without worrying about being caught for a few miles/kilometers over the limit.

I can come up with more, but I honestly don't think you'll listen.

--
Plant a tree in a developing country.

Just the thing for serial killers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:24 · Score: 0

Its just a matter of time until someone develops a system to disable other people's cars. At that point women in particular won't want to be driving down any deserted highways at night...

I know the article addressed this, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:31 · Score: 0

In case you haven't noticed, a lot of these devices are installed in our vehicles and advertised as conveniences...

My personal favorite when buying my Honda was "if you call and report your vehicle stolen this pre-installed system can immoblize it"
Or... lets preinstall remote start and remote entry and charge $600 for it.

Big brother already has the control, he just needs to activate it :)

Re:UK != England by gcaseye6677 · 2003-12-30 05:41 · Score: 1

When a U.S. NBA team wins a championship, they are referred to as the 'World Champions', even though I don't recall them narrowly beating that team from Zaire for their victory. So the grandparent poster did have a point, to an extent.

I hope I read that wrong... by Kjella · 2003-12-30 05:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

But I guarantee, it will cause at situation where a desperate person who viewed their only option as evading, who is now sitting in an otherwise dead vehicle, to open fire and cause a deadly force situation from the police.

...because it sounded like it was the police's fault that they're not allowing him to evade. The choice was always to surrender. If an idiot is stupid enough to open fire on the police, that's his fault, noone else's. If he's pinned down in a dead car, it'd be even more stupid than normal. If they already decided it was necessary to cut the car's engine, I imagine the cops' approach would be extremely cautious.

What's next, it's ok to knock a cop out, because he didn't let you run away on foot? Also, it wouldn't make much sense to kill a cop and then take off, in order to avoid it getting shut down. Unless you take out all the cops (usually at least in pairs), you'll quickly find your car dead anyway, and you won't see much mercy from those converging on you then...

Now let's say that he could try to evade. Either he succeeds, which is a big bummer for the police - getting away with it only inspires him to do it again, and more to do the same. Never mind that he'd never be punished for whatever crime caused him to evade. Or he fails, at which point you're no better off than before. After a car chase he could still open fire.

I'm not so worried about the proper legal uses for such a device. What I'm worried about would be all the possibilities for abuse, both by the government, car-jackers and other various idiots.

Btw, even if you don't know the signal, this would require your vechicle to listen for some sort of signal. Wouldn't something like an EMP blast fry this system, even if you don't know the code? You can easily find the resonance frequency of the antenna, and up close, like at the roadside and directed at the road, it really shouldn't take much power to do. Then what? Will your car stop? Or does nothing happen? I'd like to know...

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

UK gov transport policies by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2003-12-30 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

The thing is, anyone who takes a step back and looks can see the problems with the UK government's transport policies, both nationally and in many places locally. It mostly comes down to one thing: the roads are overcrowded and cars are polluting beasts, so we'd like to reduce car use as much as possible, but no-one has yet come up with a genuinely plausible alternative. Our public transport infrastructure has suffered decades of underinvestment by successive governments, and can only carry perhaps 10% of what the road network handles daily, so any ideas about "getting people onto buses" or "more commuting by train" are bound to fail.

My own local area just had 65mil given to it for a guided bus scheme that has massive local opposition. A campaign group has shown that the models used (featuring buses accelerating faster than sports cars!) were... ahem... slightly unrealistic. And it won't have anything like enough capacity to make a useful difference anyway; as with other public transport systems, we're talking an order of magnitude here. The only problem is that certain senior local councillors have set their hearts on this, and will probably have retired by the time it comes in anyway, so will never be held accountable for their actions. They dismiss the detailed counter-proposal by the campaign group as unviable, though I've yet to see any hard evidence of why. It is curious, though, that they feel the need to do this every time the media runs a story on the scheme that's going ahead; they must feel very secure in their decision...

I rather doubt that any sort of popular revolution is going to be forthcoming, unless you're counting things like the petrol protests as revolutionary. It could easily cost people like seats in Parliament/on the councils, though, as long as someone steps up and names names right before the next elections.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

Stop! Or I'll say stop again! by infinite9 · 2003-12-30 06:04 · Score: 1

Stop! Or I'll say stop again!

--
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.

But in a practical sense by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:11 · Score: 0

Nobody will beat a US professional team when they're playing for money. It just doesn't happen.

The Olympics? That means as much as an exhibition game. If you want to see basketball played, come to an NBA playoff game.

Then you'll understand why these are the "world championships".

Use titles on links to other slashdot articles by pmsyyz · 2003-12-30 06:12 · Score: 1

It could be nice if the "Californian" link to a past Slashdot article had the title attribute set on it so that I could read the article headline. This would make it easier to decide if it is worth clicking on.

--
Phillip

Re:Use titles on links to other slashdot articles by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 15:21 · Score: 0

This would make it easier to decide if it is worth clicking on.
The fact that the link points to "slashdot.org" wasn't enough to make that decision..? ;)

What's wrong with deadly force.? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:17 · Score: 0

79 year old Miami man in his own house.
13 Miami police officers break in.
129 rounds in his 79 year old body.
Justice?
Was he not dead after 128 rounds?

Re: What's wrong with deadly force.? by ryanwright · 2003-12-30 07:20 · Score: 1

79 year old Miami man in his own house.
13 Miami police officers break in.
129 rounds in his 79 year old body.
Justice?
Was he not dead after 128 rounds?

Stupid AC. If 13 officers break into your home and open fire on you, chances are high your ass deserves it. Furthermore, 129 rounds is an average of 10 per officer. If the jackass pulled a gun and started firing on the officers, I'd expect every one of them to empty their clips.

So yeah, 129 rounds is justice. I'm sure he was dead after the first 5 rounds, but those 129 rounds hit him all within a few seconds. What's your problem with the number of rounds, anyway? And why did you mention his age twice, as if it matters? A 79 year old can be just as dangerous as a 30 year old.

--
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Re: What's wrong with deadly force.? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:47 · Score: 0

He had a rake.
Re: What's wrong with deadly force.? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 10:05 · Score: 0

Pull your head out of your ass, jerkoff.

Police in the USA shoot many people that were never a threat (never had a weapon, weren't hostile, or otherwise). There's dozens a year. At least. There were like 3 in my area alone (Denver)

The sad thing is, these police never get past their police training that says to shoot to kill. There are other options, and many times a trained shooter can disable a suspect without risk of injury to himself, and less than deadly force to the suspect. Instead, 4 cops empty their magazines into the poor person's torso, reload, and shoot a few more.

Smells like justice to me.

Dude by Bendebecker · 2003-12-30 06:19 · Score: 1

It's like Rad Racer 2 if you don't make the checkpoint in time. Your engine switches off and you roll to a stop. Only difference here is you can roll into an intersection. Imagine your car stalling out in the middle of Time Square or in the middle of the highway.

--
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy

Can someone tell me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:23 · Score: 0

How do I make a tin foil hat for my cars computer to match the one on my head?

I am greatly disappointed by Wes+Janson · 2003-12-30 06:47 · Score: 1

..in slashdot for not being able to come up with a single witty joke combining "tractor beam", "orwellian", and "Star Wars/Star Trek". You people are slacking off, and it sickens me..

Re:Car hacking...Not Mine by stretch0611 · 2003-12-30 06:49 · Score: 1

They won't be stopping my car anytime soon. I have a 69 Caddy Convertible, 4 barrel Carb, 472ci (7.7 liter) engine to give me about 400hp and the best feature is No Computer to mess things up!!! (Admittedly my mechanic does not like tracing back miles of vacumn hoses and electrical wiring, but it still beats having a computer.)

--
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!

OT: Minivans versus SUV's by Tablizer · 2003-12-30 07:14 · Score: 1

Regarding your quote: "SUV = tall version of station wagon". I disagree. Station wagons were designed to hall lots of people. The equivalent today is a minivan, not an SUV. SUV's are big for status, not maximizing people loads. That is why they are hated by green fans. Teenagers didn't buy station wagons for the most part nor do they buy minivans today. It is because both are considered too practical.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:OK Dr. Idiot by Spock+the+Baptist · 2003-12-30 07:35 · Score: 1

I don't know whether or not the person you're responding to weighs 400 lbs. or not, but I do. Of course I'm six feet, and seven inches tall, and have to ware XXXXLT shirts to have enough room in the shoulders.

BTW, there IS such a thing as the 'Vulcan Death Grip' (not to be confused with the G.I. Joe kung-fu grip), it just takes a very LARGE Vulcan to preform it.

--
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian

I used to brake check tailgaters by extremesanity · 2003-12-30 08:04 · Score: 1

I used to brake check tailgaters until a very large black man communicated his feelings about being brake checked by me by chasing me through traffic and saying bad things about my mother.

I stopped brake checking from that day forward, not because I was afraid of the large black men on the road, but because I saw how angry and filled with rage some people can become over such a pointless action.

There are much bigger problems to deal with in our lives. I just try to ignore tailgaters now, not worth raising my blood pressure or theirs by having a pissing contest with 4000 pound hunks of metal.

Re:I used to brake check tailgaters by mark-t · 2003-12-30 08:36 · Score: 1

Let them rant and rave, as a driver, your job is not to make other drivers happy, it is to abide by the rules of the road set by the local authorities. You describe your tapping on the brakes as a pointless action, but it is not... it is to encourage the driver behind you to stop being an idiot and stop tailgating.
Personally, I'd rather be the cause of someone behind me getting angry and passing me in a furious rage than be manipulated by someone else (the other driver) into driving faster than I would have otherwise intended. Even if that guy's rage ends up killing someone else further up the road, what real reason should I have to feel guilty? We may not always be responsible for what we feel, but we are *ALWAYS* responsible for how we react to those feelings, and since I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate to take responsibility for *MY* mistakes, why should I accept responsibility for someone else's when I don't even know the person?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I used to brake check tailgaters by MrAngryForNoReason · 2003-12-30 09:23 · Score: 1

Personally, I'd rather be the cause of someone behind me getting angry and passing me in a furious rage

Which is fine if they do just pass you in a rage, the problem is when you stop at lights and they get out of their car and beat you with a tire iron. Yes it does happen.
Re:I used to brake check tailgaters by mark-t · 2003-12-30 10:09 · Score: 1

the problem is when you stop at lights and they get out of their car and beat you with a tire iron
Right... so you'd rather be a pawn, manipulated into doing someone else's bidding?
If the mere threat of the _possibility_ of violence can intimidate you into acting differently than you otherwise would have, pray you never meet up with someone who will exploit that weakness.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I used to brake check tailgaters by MrAngryForNoReason · 2003-12-30 10:33 · Score: 1

Right... so you'd rather be a pawn, manipulated into doing someone else's bidding?

I'd rather put up with being tailgated than be assaulted yes. A month ago I saw someone who had slowed down causing the car behind to rear end him, he stopped to exchange details and was pulled out of his car by the three men from the other car. They proceded to verbally abuse and threaten the man until a police car luckily pulled up having seen the accident.
Road rage is a serious problem and it isn't a good idea to provoke people on the road. Just as it isn't a good idea to provoke the guy who spills your drink in a pub. Maybe you can look after yourself and wouldn't worry, but maybe your girlfriend, mother or kid brother can't when they follow your advice and end up in a bad situation. Ideally we shouldn't have to submit to aggressors, but in a world where there are people who will beat someone unconcious for driving too slowly or looking at them funny in a bar it isn't a good idea to piss people off.
Re:I used to brake check tailgaters by mark-t · 2003-12-30 12:03 · Score: 1

Ideally we shouldn't have to submit to aggressors
There is no "ideally" about it. If you submit to it, you only further encourage it. I have no desire to have my brains bashed in, but I'm not about to cower in fear just because someone else is weilding a weapon or physically threatening me.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

the other way around by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:13 · Score: 0

Well, Crooks must like this idea, because it will be on the black market someday.

It would be nice that there are ten cops in a chase after you, and you can zap them and get away from them :)

Nice idea... *sigh*

... he's got a jammer by John+Whorfin · 2003-12-30 08:22 · Score: 1

that means he's a car theif, blast 'im.

cue music...

Very true. by Inoshiro · 2003-12-30 08:36 · Score: 1

That's why I also will stop and wave people past if they are tailgating severly. I don't have the time to deal with bullshit.

If only there was a similar corrective behaviour I could do for people driving dangerously under the limit. 30km/h in a 50km/h zone, dropping to 5-10km/h in turns makes in hard to maintain following distance :-/ Luckily I've only had to watch out for that kind of driving a few times.

--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.

Only controls the sheeple.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:46 · Score: 0

Of course this isn't going to do anything to control criminals. You know - the guys who will simply hire an unemployed geek to build them a small transmitter.

Something that operates on the same freq as the cut-out receiver circuit. Just strong enough to create enough static so that the receiver can't determine if it's getting a real signal or not, and so does nothing...

At least one hopes it does nothing when receiving junk signals - if not, then Scenario 2:

Criminal hires unemployed geek, geek builds high-powered xmitter to send out junk on the frequency... Entire M70 starts shutting down and crashing into each other...

Next week, remote cutouts get upgraded to ignore junk signals, and we're back to scenario 1 again...

So how does this help the cops?

Why don't these fucks just buy a helicopter, and forget about chasing the car on the ground... let 'em run... watch from the helicopter, arrest the schmuck when he stops, and sell the video to Fox for a US special programme?

A null list? by Stephen+Samuel · 2003-12-30 09:49 · Score: 1

I would be happy to know if there is even one technology, originally designated for police/government use only, that has not been (mis)used or seriously threatened to be misused by criminals and/or terrorists.

The closest to being on that list is nukes, but the US governments claims that there are serious threats of WMD use, cut it off of the list.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

Links about ISA by doogieb · 2003-12-30 09:53 · Score: 1

Relavent links about Intelligent Speed Adaptation being trialled in Europe at the moment. Blurb from one of the sites:-

Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) is a general term for Intelligent Transport Systems that serve to limit the speed of a vehicle. By restricting the vehicle to the posted speed limit, ISA potentially provides one of the most effective strategies for reducing inappropriate speeds.

PROSPER Project
Leeds University trials
MIRA a manufacturer

--
Doogie. If you can read this, my sig fell off

Speaking as a Brit by evilandi · 2003-12-30 10:27 · Score: 1

Sigh. Speaking as a Brit myself, this ain't gonna happen .

The police are always asking for daft things. The government tries to give them guns so they can do what every other policeman in the world does and shoot the perps, they refuse and ask for super dooper wizbang tech. Then the government gets a hammering from the public and the House of Lords, who tell the government that either the wizbang tech doesn't work or is ludicrously expensive or is easily hackable, or, more often, all three.

Repeat ad infinitum. Booor-ing. Thank goodness that the armed response units the police do have, have the decency to carry P90 and MP5 submachine guns instead of pathetic little sidearms like most foriegn forces.

--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com

Very very bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 11:16 · Score: 0

A rapist armed with this car control and a cell phone blocker and a stun gun could harvest as many women as he wants on any dark streach of road.

He just has to wait til one car is coming, see if it is just a woman alone and then pull her over... she tries to call for help and the phone is blocked... before she can get away he breaks out her window, stuns her, throws her in the passenger seat and takes her off to the dungeon. The car is in a chop shop before an hour is up.

So No. I vote against having external controls for cars.

Make it detect pulse and blood oxygen by leonbrooks · 2003-12-30 11:19 · Score: 1

That can be done optically, and would make amputated-member difficult. Especially if the car called in a medical emergency when it detected a dead finger.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Missed one! by leonbrooks · 2003-12-30 11:25 · Score: 1

You forgot Albion.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Terrorists will be among the first to applaud this by Tjp($)pjT · 2003-12-30 11:28 · Score: 1

Of yes, just kill the engine on that limo ... Or kill all the engines of all the nearby cars in a major city like Paris, London, NYC, LA, or Rome (well who'd notice in Rome ;).

--
- Tjp

I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

No, thank you! by TygerFish · 2003-12-30 13:06 · Score: 1

To the morons going on about how the criminals can hack the limiter on their cars in the safety of their own garages...

This is a solution to a _different problem_, e.g. when a criminal hijacks another car to escape. You're telling me he's going to spend five minutes dicking around under the car to disable the limiter first? Get a fucking clue!

If mad carjacking is so prevelant where you live that police cars by the score aren't enough, and surveillance cameras aren't enough, and helicopters aren't...

if it's really that Mad Max where you are for anyone who steps behind the wheel and turns the key that the police need a solution built into every car on the assembly line, I suggest that you come here to the United States where you can move to the bad parts of the South Bronx, or South Central L.A.--into any of the deepest, nastiest ghettos we've got--so you can finally breathe easy.

--
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."

Shootouts? In Britain? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 13:36 · Score: 0

Gun crime isn't that common in the UK. The second biggest news item at the moment is the fatal shooting of a Yorkshire policeman - and it's big news, because it's the only such shooting since 1995.

MMHW Anyone? by goldmeer · 2003-12-30 13:54 · Score: 1

At first, I thought that they were toying with Mobile Mounted HERF Weapons.

I've wondered when I was going to read of a criminal disabling the police pursuit with one of these mounted in the trunk of the getaway car.

Nasty things. Nasty but effective.

NOTE: HERF weapons that destroy elecronics should not be confused with HREF weapons that destroy serves (SLASHDOT.ORG).

ah, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 14:29 · Score: 0

You're allowed to read a dictionary.
Read one, you illiterate fucking moron.

Re:I vote Cracker! by cayenne8 · 2003-12-30 18:28 · Score: 1

I wonder how long it will be for some one to hack into the system...and learn how to 'stop' someone else's car? One good script kiddie...and terminal gridlock all over the place.

No thanks...I'll stick to my older car that is virtually pre-computer.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch by Grishnakh · 2003-12-30 20:00 · Score: 1

This kind of stuff won't appear in cheaper cars for some time, but all cars are gaining more electronics for safety, efficiency, performance and mechanical simplicity

I'm not flaming, but I fail to see how using electrical brakes instead of hydraulic brakes increases safety. (This is coming from an electrical engineer who fools around with cars as a hobby.) Sure, ABS would be a little easier to implement with electrical brakes, but losing engine power is not completely unheard of, and would prevent operation of the electrical brakes unless I'm mistaken. Hydraulic brakes, while difficult without power assist, require no power to work. Same goes for mechanically-operated steering. And the idea of having full computer control of brakes scares me; computers haven't been made that reliable yet:
http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2003/n051301.sht ml

Moo by Chacham · 2003-12-31 03:15 · Score: 1

So the UK has finally discovered Knight Rider. :)

--
Have you read my journal today?

HE's COMING RIGHT FOR US, AND HE HAS A RAKE! by Charcharodon · 2003-12-31 10:23 · Score: 1

Dozens a year, dozens you say! OH MY GOD SAVE US!

More idiot children where crushed to death by soda machines they tipped over on themselves than dozens!

More people choked to death on a snack food, than dozens.

More people fall over and die in the bathroom after smacking their head on the toilet than dozens.

It's sad and it's tragic, but when you compare dozens with the millions jerks the police have to deal with DAILY, I wouldn't even start getting remotely worked up until the number of "innocents" and I use this word with a bit of sceptisism (many of the so called innocents tends to be dirt bags that had it coming for something else anyway) that the police kill anually starts getting into the thousands. If anything the police should be shooting more people not fewer, especially if they have something as dangerous as a rake. What kind of dumbass confronts the police with a rake. You should be shot outright just on principle for that kind of stupidity.

Slashdot Mirror

UK Police Want An Automotive Tractor Beam

504 comments