UK Police Want An Automotive Tractor Beam

Barryke writes "According to The Observer, England is working on a remote control for cars to be used by the police. England's police force is lobbying to get a remote-control to stop other cars; this could also be used to limit speeds. Since needed technology is already available in modern cars, modification is very easy and cheap. But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch and use my speed to go downhill? Bet I'm in the hospital before they are!" Orwellian, or ... Californian?

Comments

And thus...

[Compact Dick]

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.

Re:And thus...

[KamuSan]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

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...

[the_mad_poster]

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?

Re:And thus...

[LPetrazickis]

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.

Re:And thus...

[uradu]

> 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...

[LPetrazickis]

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

Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yawn!

[pxpt]

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.

what, me worry?

[tuxette]

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?

Re:what, me worry?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"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.

Re:what, me worry?

[Rostin]

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?

[junklight]

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?

[kfg]

Everyone has an infinite amount of hindsight.

Oh, if this simple statement were even vaguely true.

KFG

Re:what, me worry?

[Jerf]

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

Terrible Idea

[evilviper]

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.

Re:Terrible Idea

[Politburo]

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.

RC Cars.. Haha

[srosebush]

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...

WTF?!

[oPless]

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?!

[silas_moeckel]

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.

Re:I can't see them using this...

[rpjs]

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:What do they need this for!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Safe resolution of dangerous car chases.

2003 is making 1984 look like 1968

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:But what if I just escape by hitting the clutch

[beezly]

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).

DIY Fuel Injection

[femto]

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

[Technician]

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.

Re:Yeah right

[Gumshoe]

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:I can't see them using this...

[Ataru]

Why don't you just slow down, keep within the speed limit, and save yourself a lot of silly bother?

Re:Ahhh... the opportunities!

[TygerFish]

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...

Re:I vote Orwellian!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Too many problems.

[Qubed]

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.

I wondered why they didn't do it fifteen years ago

[BlueCoder]

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:STOP-ping Every Car Carrying an Almanac..

[jrumney]

Today its almanacs, tommorrow maps. I'd hate to think what the FBI think of people with GPS naviagation systems in their cars.

Re:I vote Orwellian!

[diersing]

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:This absurd

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:I vote Orwellian!

[I8TheWorm]

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.

Re:Eas of getting caught

[I8TheWorm]

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.

*Will* carry just in case?

[nurb432]

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.

It's called the US Constitution

[leereyno]

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

Stupid idea. it's not like only cops can use it

[Alcimedes]

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.

Consider learning about the flow of traffic.

[Inoshiro]

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.

UK gov transport policies

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.