Police remotely stop cars

Page 1 of 2  
It started out in the race pits. This article is from a British newspaper today. What's there today will be here tomorrow, so get ready, because, like so many other things, it's going
to happen no matter what we say. We will no longer be masters of anything, even our own cars. Cell phones are going to have automatic tracking devices, and the computers in our cars are going to be used to give control over to someone else whenever they think it is best for us. I hate it when someone does something for my own good. It never works out that way.
Police call for remote button to stop cars
Motorists face new 'Big Brother' technology
After speed cameras, road humps and mobile phone bans, there could be more bad news for Britain's motorists. Police are urging Ministers to give them the power to stop vehicles by remote control. In what will be seen as yet another example of the in-creasing power of Big Brother, drivers face the prospect of their cars being halted by somebody pushing a button.
'Providing an effective means to remotely stop a vehicle is fast becoming a priority,' Hammond told a European conference. 'The development of a safe and controlled system to enable remote stopping has the potential to directly save lives.'
However, Bert Morris, deputy director of the AA Motoring Trust said: 'People don't like the idea of Big Brother taking over their driving. In years to come that might be acceptable, but it's very, very important that there's a step-by-step approach.'
Cars could be stopped by the gradual reduction of engine power so it slowly comes to a stop, or by making sure when drivers come to a halt they can not move again.
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.
Similar radio telemetry was used by Formula One pit crews to adjust the engines of racing cars at up to 200mph - until it was banned this year.
Another link is to technology which would stop cars going above certain speed limits - either a fixed maximum such as 70mph, or varying according to the local limit.
Experts now believe the technology could start to be used voluntarily by the end of the decade and ultimately could be made mandatory.
--
I owe much.
I have nothing.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"B Dragon"> It started out in the race pits.

put that shit in one of my cars and i'll yank it all out !!
-- http://edmontonssin.no-ip.com http://gopherhunt.no-ip.com
--
i am the darkest creation of god


>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: : "B Dragon"> It started out in the race pits. : > This article is from a British newspaper today. What's there today will : be : > here tomorrow, so get ready, because, like so many other things, it's : going : > to happen no matter what we say. We will no longer be masters of : anything, : > even our own cars. Cell phones are going to have automatic tracking : > devices, and the computers in our cars are going to be used to give : control : > over to someone else whenever they think it is best for us. I hate it : when : > someone does something for my own good. It never works out that way. : > : > Police call for remote button to stop cars : > : > Motorists face new 'Big Brother' technology : > : > After speed cameras, road humps and mobile phone bans, there could be more : > bad news for Britain's motorists. Police are urging Ministers to give them : > the power to stop vehicles by remote control. : > In what will be seen as yet another example of the in-creasing power of : Big : > Brother, drivers face the prospect of their cars being halted by somebody : > pushing a button. : > : > 'Providing an effective means to remotely stop a vehicle is fast becoming : a : > priority,' Hammond told a European conference. 'The development of a safe : > and controlled system to enable remote stopping has the potential to : > directly save lives.' : > : > However, Bert Morris, deputy director of the AA Motoring Trust said: : 'People : > don't like the idea of Big Brother taking over their driving. In years to : > come that might be acceptable, but it's very, very important that there's : a : > step-by-step approach.' : > : > Cars could be stopped by the gradual reduction of engine power so it : slowly : > comes to a stop, or by making sure when drivers come to a halt they can : not : > move again. : > : > 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. : > : > Similar radio telemetry was used by Formula One pit crews to adjust the : > engines of racing cars at up to 200mph - until it was banned this year. : > : > Another link is to technology which would stop cars going above certain : > speed limits - either a fixed maximum such as 70mph, or varying according : to : > the local limit. : > : > Experts now believe the technology could start to be used voluntarily by : the : > end of the decade and ultimately could be made mandatory. : > : > : > -- : > I owe much. : > I have nothing. : > I leave the rest to the poor. : > : ha ! : put that shit in one of my cars and i'll yank it all out !! : : : -- : http://edmontonssin.no-ip.com : http://gopherhunt.no-ip.com : ---- : i am the darkest creation of god
Never happen anyway. There ain't been a lock made that doesn't have a key. Can you imagine hundreds of motorists suddenly coming to a complete stop because of the whimsy of some punk kids.....or terrorists?
Yeah....just one more stupid idea.
Martin '01 Formula - MTI Air Box Lid, K&N Filter, Hurst-6, SLP Cold Air Induction & Smooth Intake Bellow Corsa Catback w/Premium Tips '83 V45 Magna
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, if I'm reading the article right, if your car is new enough to be so equipped, it's already in your car. The idea is to just remotely override the accelerator/decelerator function that is already integral in your ECM or other computer controlled device. The remote control will be held by the police or whomever, and it will use what's already in your car to regulate your speed, or bring you to a stop. Every advance in technology brings a potential demon with it. I hope this doesn't happen, but I think we better keep a heads-up if we start hearing about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
All the more reason to keep on driving my second gen firebird
Bruce

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Got that right...
--
I am not your rolling wheels
I am the highway
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<begin ranting>
Yep I can totally see this happening in the US and it's bull$hit -
For example:
- My new car's computer has a black box that shows how fast i was going (and brake usage) before an accident, which an insurance company or court can obtain the info from. disconnect it? i doubt if i would be able to disconnect it too easily the way that engine management is wired. to me, that's a good case to keep driving an older model - the traffic lights around where i live and most major cities have freakin cameras and spotlights so that even if I don't get pulled over, i may still get a ticket. I am not saying that that is so bad, because if i run a light i should be ticketed, but no wonder i am paranoid if driving fast.
Seems like slowly our freedoms are continuing to be taken away and that to me is a really scary future. Vote for your representatives carefully (even though sometimes I wonder if that still matters.)
<done ranting>
=)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not sure who you're replying to, but I've re-read this entire thread and cannot find any instance regarding either 1) a desire to lie with impunity, or 2) a box that is only read after an accident. The thread is about a person's car being stopped or governed remotely through use of the onboard computer system. It seems that you might be speaking about a "black box" recording system. Also, a lot of the talk here has been about taking responsibility for one's actions, so I don't think it has been an attempt to promote lying, especially without consequences. Your point about red light cameras and selfish people putting others at risk is well taken, and therein lies the question: do we all become monitored because of some? Maybe. As has been said, if you aren't committing a crime, what do you have to worry about? And that's probably about the way it will go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi. Thanks for the reply. I realize the main part of the thread deals with a zapper technology... but I am all but certain there was some mention somewhere of the already existing black box device.
The thrust about that was that the black box somehow violates privacy. I say it is only looked at by law enforcement or the courts in response to a legitimate investigation, and the box is far less likely to lie than the owner of the car that it was in. In fact, it may even help corroborate the story of the owner in contradiction to the other motorist(s) involved (in an accident).
The lamenting of the black box I believe was accompanied by a brief stab at cameras too. But I must confess, I cannot site the exact author or message. I will say though, that I believe I read some such here and was wanting to give my 2 cents on it. I am not intentionally trying to be off topic and am certainly not trolling for fish bites. If I am mistaken about reading such here, then my apologies to all concerned.
wrote:

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Certainly you are not alone in being one who can make mistakes. I make more than my share. Thank you for the gracious reply, and your equanimity. I think this topic is pretty much over now for me, but it was worth being involved in just to have the opportunity to dialogue with someone as open minded and thoughtful as yourself. And, you know, in thinking about it, I recall something being said about black box technology too. Maybe I missed it when I retraced this thread, or maybe it was in another similar one, but while my interest is piqued, does this mean that current auto technology has implemented the black box into automobiles? Or is just the capability there?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Thank you for the kind words. My understanding is that in the ECM, BCM or some other such module in many of todays current production automobiles, that some telemetry information is recorded. Things such as speed, brakes application etc. Exactly which elements of telemetry, for what span of time, or even under which circumstances it is recorded are unknown to me. I guess I might basically say that it would seem there is more going on there than just mere OBD-II in many of todays vehicles. Or so legend has it.
Anyway, it doesn't bother me if such a BB (black box) is forensically evaluated in the event of a crash investigation or some such. Much the same way that the tires, body, gauges or road markings are. I would not, however, support the use of such technology to actively report, disclose or otherwise communicate such information pro actively. Such use I think runs into a possible conflict with 4th amendment rights to privacy and even possibly 5th amendment issues.
And yes... I certainly make my share of mistakes too.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 02:57:03 GMT, foolspicedham_melbo snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (SgtSilicon) puked:

And you're comfortable with relying on the testimony of the box to possibly send you to jail for a long time? I hope those little computers are more reliable than my home PC.

It's only a short slope away from determining that the images from those cameras are public domain, and from there a whole list of privacy issues can materialize. Call me crazy, but I'm one of those folks that like to have a little privacy. No one has the right to monitor my movement.
If you want to make the argument that driving is a privilege, fine. But walking on the sidewalk is a right, and no one has the right to video tape me without my consent.
In addition, in Florida they have kicked the idea around of using the SunPass turnpike toll device to monitor traffic patterns. This isn't much different in my opinion.
Ok, I can be a paranoid kook sometimes, but think of me when you appear on a government-sponsered version of America's Most Wanted as an enemy of the state. :) -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes I am comfortable with that. At least more comfortable than having to trust people that might have something to hide. Also I want to state that I'm not implying that a BB is the be all end all. It is just an additional tool; a factor which can be considered. I believe a helpful one.

Not crazy, just misguided. This may come as a shock to you but I'm a huge supporter of privacy rights. For example I have big issues with the so called Patriot act, but that's for another day in another forum. Anyway, I just don't think that anyone has a "right" not to be watched, looked at, gazed upon, photographed, videoed or otherwise observed in PUBLIC PLACES. Last I checked, our city streets and intersections are public places. In short, if a policeman could stand on the corner and observe people running the red light, then a video camera that serves the function by proxy, to me is really no different (in terms of legitimacy). So yeah, I'm with you on defending real issues of privacy rights, but I just don't see this as violating any of those rights. Try to spy inside my home or such though and see how friendly I am to that. ;-)

You are incorrect. You can be observed, photographed or even video taped in public places; not only by members of law enforcement by your fellow members of the public as well. You have no such "right" to prohibit such. Exactly where do you think this right is coded, recorded or otherwise legally recognized?

I'm unfamiliar with this issue but judging by my general stance on public places like that, I would guess I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Okay. Hey, just remember I am a strong supporter of rights, especially privacy. We just happen to disagree on a couple things as pertains to their status as rights or non rights. Let's get back to our F-bodies shall we?
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:02:19 GMT, foolspicedham_melbo snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (SgtSilicon) puked:

Why do you think they have to pay recognizable extras in movies? And if you notice, on COPS they often blur out people's faces. And I've heard of more than one occasion of people being arrested for trying to film women without their knowledge in public places.
Privacy isn't necessarily confined to ones home. -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well....damn...all that time it was thought to be about royalties to be paid from the exhibition of a for profit show....
IF you have a problem being taped, I suggest that places like NC, NY, SC, CA, CO, NV and others be off your driving list, as even here in NC, you can see cams at every intersection, and at all interstate junctions.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SgtSilicon wrote:

It's already been shown that most of those stoplight cameras are timed to generate revenue and actually cause accidents as people slam on thier brakes rather than safely go through a yellow. I call BS on that. As far as the "black boxes" go, it's an iffy deal in my mind. What happens if an accident occurs directy in front of you in say slick conditions, and then as you drive out of the skid you hit the skinny pedal to get the ass end loose to power steer? At that point if you are still unable to avoid the accident, that box might show your terminal speed as 90. You weren't doing 90 but it's not like the box will supply anything but raw info. As far as cops being able to kill ignition to stop a car no way I'll ever own a car that will allow that. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that if you aren't doing anything wrong you have no need for privacy. Now THAT is a spurious argument.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: SgtSilicon wrote: : > Since the box is only read if you're in an accident, it would seem the : > choice you would like to have is to lie with impunity. You could have : > already made and acted out the choice to exceed the speed limit for : > example, but then would like the ability to hide the truth? I for one : > would like to limit people's ability to make that "choice." : > : > Also I say bring on the red light cameras. Need more of them. Too : > many selfish people putting other's lives at risk for the sake of : > their own selfish interest. : > : : It's already been shown that most of those stoplight cameras are timed to : generate revenue and actually cause accidents as people slam on thier brakes : rather than safely go through a yellow. I call BS on that. As far as the : "black boxes" go, it's an iffy deal in my mind. What happens if an accident : occurs directy in front of you in say slick conditions, and then as you : drive out of the skid you hit the skinny pedal to get the ass end loose to : power steer? At that point if you are still unable to avoid the accident, : that box might show your terminal speed as 90. You weren't doing 90 but : it's not like the box will supply anything but raw info. As far as cops : being able to kill ignition to stop a car no way I'll ever own a car that : will allow that. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that if you aren't : doing anything wrong you have no need for privacy. Now THAT is a spurious : argument.
I can't disagree with your statement. In many places, cameras have been put up to generate revenue rather than safeguard and regulate the flow of traffic. Perhaps it just seems that way, but I'm skeptical.
HOWEVER, as a standard, what do red lights indicate? Red means stop! That's why we have it on stop lights, on Do Not Enter, on Wrong Way, on Stop Signs, break/tail lights. Yellow means slow down, caution! Hence most yield signs, and most R/R signs are yellow, turn signals are yellow, caution/warning traffic lights flash yellow, Special Speed Limit signs are in yellow, traffic lights have a yellow indicator to signify to drivers CAUTION, I'm about to change. As a general rule, yellow lights will give you 1sec. of indication per every 10mph of speed limit. Drivers who are not already IN the intersection or cannot come to a complete stop before entering an intersection in which a traffic light has just turned yellow - are supposed to come to a complete stop whether the light is red or not.
And so, I am all for the revenue generating stop light cameras. Generates Revenue? Sure. Makes people think twice about flooring the accelerator to get through the intersection? I hope so. What's 3-5min. right? Is it worth the $80 ticket? Or worse, injuring a pedestrian or others in another vehicle? I should say not. What's more, the cameras are clearly indicated and it is entirely up to the driver to defy the law. Cameras are infinitely more innocuous than allowing anyone to remotely stop your vehicle.
Like I said, I can't disagree that many cameras have been placed to generate revenue, and it really doesn't bother me.
Martin '01 Formula - MTI Air Box Lid, K&N Filter, Hurst-6, SLP Cold Air Induction & Smooth Intake Bellow Corsa Catback w/Premium Tips '83 V45 Magna
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I call BS on your blurb above. The revenue can only be generated if there are people in violation. And please don't tell ne they don't work. They do. If there's a problem the units shut themselves down. Would you prefer people get jail time instead of a fine? Or do you think people should just run lights as the choose without penalty? I say fines are a good way to go. Naturally that generates revenue but that can help offset the cost of government's operational budget. I think you imply that the machines are set to cite people that are not in violation. That just isn't the case. If it is then yeah, that's a problem. I'm just not going to believe it because you say so.

That is what investigations, testimony and ultimately judges and juries are for. The box is but one tool. Testimony, reason, environmental circumstance and other forensics still play a role.

I know I never made that point and I don't recall anyone else making it either. I think you are either legitimately confusing it with the point that if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no reason to fear some type of measured observation, or else you are making a straw man by transforming one point into a more easily attacked position. The issue of nothing to fear if behaving, is apart from not having a need (or more accurately; right) to privacy. In short, the point that was made was more along the lines of: A black box is not a violation of privacy, and as such strenuous opposition to it must stem from some other motivation. That motivation is then suspected to be fear of getting busted for acting improperly. It is this line of thinking that brings about the statement or reminder that only deviant types need to fear. It is in fact not a position based on regarding privacy rights to be irrelevant at all.
** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and including the underscore in my email reply header.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I call bullshit on those that think they can beat the yellow, so they hit the gas and try to beat it anyway. I have seen it too many times. Charlotte, Greensboro, and High Point all use them, along with many other towns, but I have seen more acidents NOT due to the cam, since the camera is nothing but an inanimate object that is there to do a job, but the driver that makes the choice not to hit the brakes, but try to beat the red, and ends up hitting the car on the other side of the intersection thats slowed for another light, or some old lady thats pulling out into traffic.

Thats not power steering, thats power stupid. I dont agree with it, and I have over a million miles now under my belt. Counter steering on a bike is one thing, (BTW, Martin, the Magnas for sale..maybe..) and anyone that would have to correct in such a fashion in slick conditions, was following too closely for conditions.

That 20MPG UMPH in the ass from the tall skinny being slapped to the floor would not have a thing in the world to do with that would it?

Doubtful. It would show your RPMS, and your MPH, and it would be obvious to anyone reading the unit that you dont go from 35, to 90 in 2 seconds in whatever you might be in, and the RPMs would rat it out anyway, since about that time you would be out of high and into a lower gear, thus, you might have a tire speed of 90, but it would be obvious that it was not so.

And if thats the case, see above. The boxes record enough time so that it can be proven...too many people worry about that stuff.. Fords been using them for years...where are all the lawsuits?

Do you have electronic ignition? Surprise..its possible now. And its being used in place of spike strips. Its an interesting deal that fries the ignition system, and anything electronic in the car basically....you drive over it and BAM, lightning bolt from underneath...really cool vids of it were someplace..have to look to see if I can find them again.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.