backtop

Auto OnStar Shuts Down Stolen Vehicle
Michael Barkoviak - October 21, 2009 7:41 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by spepper.. on Oct 24 at 10:51 AM
GM's OnStar feature slows stolen vehicle

A 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe that was taken at gunpoint over the weekend in California – the brief chase ended when OnStar electronically disabled the vehicle's gas pedal after operators sent the vehicle several commands.

The OnStar shut down likely helped keep the public safe by avoiding a high-speed pursuit.

According to OnStar President Walt Dorfstatter, OnStar was able to successfully shut the vehicle down in 16 minutes -- once the Visalia, Calif., police received permission from Jose Ruiz, the car owner, with authorities contacting OnStar.

"While this was the first time that we've used the Stolen Vehicle Slowdown service, we have used OnStar in several other cases to help locate and recover stolen vehicles. It's a valuable tool for our agency," Visalia Police Department Sergeant Steven Phillips said in a statement.  "In this case, it helped us not only, but also prevented a dangerous high-speed chase and allowed us to quickly apprehend a suspect. It's a win for everyone."

General Motors operates OnStar, and although it isn't available on all GM vehicles yet, it's a feature that the automaker hopes to roll out to all vehicles.  The automaker said 18 of 30 new 2010 vehicles are equipped with OnStar.  It's possible all GM vehicles will have OnStar in the next few years, but the company didn't outline a specific target date.

If automakers are not able to shut down the car remotely, interested consumers can have GPS activated so the police have the ability to track a vehicle if stolen.  Automakers have attempted to work with law enforcement for innovative methods to limit the danger in high speed chases, including auto shut down and better tracking technologies.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
TV Stations
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/21/2009 7:52:49 AM , Rating: 5
California TV stations aren't gonna like this... they love a good, long car chase.




RE: TV Stations
By Mitch101 on 10/21/2009 8:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
They need to lock the thief in the car and when the police arrive show the beating.

1 vs 10 with nightsticks and stunguns.


RE: TV Stations
By MrPeabody on 10/21/2009 9:19:11 AM , Rating: 2
The folks at OnStar can already control much of the electronics in the vehicle. They really only need to pursue two more steps:

1) Expand this control to the vehicle's power seats.
2) Increase the power of the little electric seat motors substantially, to allow for sudden and violent movements.

Then, while the police make their way to the vehicle, the thief could be "pre-processed". I'd watch that.


RE: TV Stations
By BZDTemp on 10/21/2009 10:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
Why bother with motors in the seat. The electricity should be used in a more direct way and it would save loads of public money.


RE: TV Stations
By Aeonic on 10/21/2009 1:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think it should deploy the airbags :]


RE: TV Stations
By newyorker on 10/22/2009 11:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
"1 vs 10 with nightsticks and stunguns."

I could care less about the odds, or the sticks, or the stunguns, as a matter of fact, liberal use of these implements would be appreciated..

I kinda like my car, which I didn't steal, I'd stun them myself


RE: TV Stations
By spepper on 10/24/2009 10:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
....especially if it's a 1988 white Ford Bronco, with OJ Simpson lying on the floorboard-- going about 30 mph-- for the metric folks, that's about 50 kph


By michal1980 on 10/21/2009 9:54:26 AM , Rating: 5
in Soviet America cars run you.




By michal1980 on 10/21/2009 11:35:38 AM , Rating: 5
for now.


By ChristopherO on 10/21/2009 1:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, but you could live in Oregon where they are considering making GPS mandatory in every vehicle so that they can tax you based on miles driven.

Oh, and I guess that comes with the infidelity tax. If they notice you going to someone's house who you aren't married to, they call and ask for a thousand-dollar campaign contribution for some big-brother wing-nut, who then makes sure his cronies watching the GPS system get a beefy raise.


Grammar Nazi Alert
By marsbound2024 on 10/21/2009 8:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, wtf: "A 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe that was taken at gunpoint over the weekend in California – the brief chase ended when OnStar..."

"In this case, it helped us not only, but also prevented a dangerous high-speed chase and allowed us to quickly apprehend a suspect. It's a win for everyone."

It helped us not only, but also...? What is that? Are those actually the words the came out of his mouth?




RE: Grammar Nazi Alert
By marsbound2024 on 10/21/2009 8:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
Grrrr! "Are those actually the words THAT came out of his mouth?"

Curse you non-existence-of-edit-button!!!! CURSE YOU! *waves fist angrily as if a mad scientist*


RE: Grammar Nazi Alert
By straycat74 on 10/21/2009 9:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Curse you non-existence-of-edit-button!!!! CURSE YOU! *waves fist angrily as if a mad scientist*

Blame yourself. Before I post, I have to hit the preview button which activates the post comment button, then allows me to post. How many chances do you need? Just one more. Then one more.
Remember, life doesn't have an edit button.


RE: Grammar Nazi Alert
By Spuke on 10/21/2009 12:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blame yourself. Before I post,
I thought he was making a funny by using the Rush Hour quote.


RE: Grammar Nazi Alert
By Hieyeck on 10/21/2009 10:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
Grammar Nazi Irony.

Nothing else is funnier.


Life Imitates art
By HoundRogerson on 10/21/2009 2:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what the newest On-Star commercial is.

Stolen truck being shutdown remotely.




OnStar
By Tacoloft on 10/21/2009 4:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the next step is to install OnStar into Guns and then later into people...
Your kid is being stupid - "Yeah OnStar, my kid is being a pill...can you please disable him? Thaaaanks!"
And then later the government can control us all...

At least in this case the police got permission from the owner and respected the idea of private property. But the potential abuse and consequences of giving another entity this kind of power should also be considered.




By SpaceJumper on 10/21/2009 5:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
The solution is actually very simple but not a lot of people know how to do it. Satellite and cellphone signals are very weak.
Or use the very high EMP pulse and selectively kill the suspected electronics in it.




This would be cool if...
By sleepeeg3 on 10/21/2009 5:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
-This was on non Government Motors vehicles
-OnStar were free
-I owned a Ferrari




Basic writing skills?
By ggordonliddy on 10/21/2009 8:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe that was taken at gunpoint over the weekend in California – the brief chase ended when OnStar electronically disabled the vehicle's gas pedal after operators sent the vehicle several commands.

Please learn basic English. That is not a valid sentence.




By bupkus on 10/21/2009 8:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
Considering the potential cost in liabilities of high speed chases and lost cars this is something the insurance companies should take an interest in, but...
I had a home alarm system with central monitoring but my home owners insurance offered a minimal discount. Financial issues forced me to discontinue the service with the hope that a loud alarm would discourage a forced entry. That was 25 years ago and I still own that house.


By seamonkey79 on 10/21/2009 8:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
hehe... because there's so much extra money from all those extra taxes they've been tacking on to alcohol and tobacco that all the states with alcohol and tobacco taxes aren't already looking to further increase said taxes because there isn't enough money coming from them to cover the things that they said would be more than adequately covered by said taxes... strangely, some people stopped drinking and stopped smoking, or at least cut both down, instead of paying $2.00 for a pack of smokes and $4 in taxes...


By theapparition on 10/21/2009 8:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
strangely, some people stopped drinking and stopped smoking, or at least cut both down, instead of paying $2.00 for a pack of smokes and $4 in taxes...

Why do you say strangely? I have the opinion that the tax worked.


By R3T4rd on 10/21/2009 9:15:30 AM , Rating: 1
I do agree tabaco and smoke taxes may work to get people to quit. However, I myself smoke and drink. Who gives other people the right to tell me to stop both? I have a job, I pay for my own Health Benefits, and I am just as hard a worker like everyone who works for a living. If I want to kill myself, that is my decision. I know its bad for me, but if I don't care why should anyone else care if I die(besides my family ofcourse..but thats another topic). Its no ones decision but mine. Its enough we get taxed on everything in the US and nothing good comes from it except a few. And all that money? Where's it gone to? I also accept the fact that I get charged a bit more for being a smoker and a drinker but why should I get punished for again something I am doing to myself? And don't give me that second hand smoke fiasco BS. Second Hand Smoke = Green House affect - nothings been proven except in lab rats.

If I can't provide my own Healthcare, Living expenses, drive drunk, and causing cancer everywhere I go, then yes, I am a threat to society. But no. I think I have all that covered pretty well.

I do think its a shady idea at best to have this kinda feature on our cars. You can argue it both ways because I as hell don't want big brother watching my evey move (Eagle Eye..anyone?). But I am glad this worked out for the better in this scenario.


By oTAL (blog) on 10/21/2009 11:10:27 AM , Rating: 5
Well, I for one think that there is enough evidence that second hand smoke is bad for you.

Nevertheless, even if we assume that it isn't, I can tell you that people smoking close by bothers me! It bothers my throat and my eyes and I should have the freedom to be out in public and not take YOUR crap. What about MY freedom?

Do you think I'd be exercising my freedom if I parked a truck of fresh manure every morning in front of your house? I don't care about the flies and the smell! It's my freedom! Deal with it!


By Alexstarfire on 10/21/2009 4:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Very interesting take on this subject. First, you are assuming he's just parking his manure truck in that spot because he's an a-hole, but perhaps there is a reason. Perhaps it won't fit in his driveway. IDK as that's not really the point.

Secondly, when someone elses freedom is hurt me then I think that's where I draw the line. Second hand smoke is toxic, that is a fact. Even if you need absurd amounts to get cancer that really isn't the point. I shouldn't pretty much be forced into inhaling this toxin just because you feel like destroying your body. They don't ban cigarettes EVERYWHERE, just in places that are confined and crowed, like buildings. I also don't understand something you are saying. You sit there and say you could never accumulate this much toxin over years, but how long are you talking about. Many people are subject to second hand smoke and can't do anything about it, like babies and kids. And you're going to pick up second hand smoke from different sources throughout your entire life. Are you going to tell me that even over about 70 years, since that's about the national average life span, that there isn't the slightest possibility that you could get cancer from it? You'd have to be a nut to think that. Second hand smoke in itself doesn't necessarily have to cause cancer, but it increases your chances for pretty much all types of cancer a good bit.

Even apart from cancer, you get some of the side effects of smoking, like bad skin, smelling like smoke, bad taste, decreased lung capacity etc.. not to the same degree, but enough to notice. Depends on how much second hand smoke you are around though.

Let people smoke and drink if they want to, but once it starts affecting me that's when I have problems. Really though, if a place has a completely separate smoking and non-smoking section, like pretty much two different buildings, then that's fine, but anything else is just unacceptable to me. Granted I don't go out very often, but when I do I make sure it's not a place filled with smoke. Though in this state I don't have to worry about that, being Georgia FYI.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/21/2009 5:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Second hand smoke is toxic, that is a fact.


Yeah, and so is CO2 right ?

Almost anything is "toxic" in huge amounts. The amounts needed to develop cancer and other health problems from second hand smoke DO NOT exist in the real everyday world. That's what I'm trying to get across here.

You have to look at this logically. You, like most on this subject, are coming from a very emotional response based point of view. I'm not calling you a Liberal, per say, but you seem like one.

quote:
Are you going to tell me that even over about 70 years, since that's about the national average life span, that there isn't the slightest possibility that you could get cancer from it?


Another fallacy. If everything we ever breathed just accumulated in our lungs, we would be dead before we hit adulthood. Even people who directly smoke two packs a day for decades on end don't always get cancer. And they are subjecting themselves to thousands more parts per million of carcenogens on a daily basis than you would get from random second hand smoke.

quote:
Second hand smoke in itself doesn't necessarily have to cause cancer, but it increases your chances for pretty much all types of cancer a good bit.


OH please. That's a rediculouse statement. And it's impossible to prove. The best study you could quote would say it's "likely", meaning it's also likely you could get hit by a meteorite on your way to work.

The issue here isn't health, and you know it. It's pollitics. Politics are at the heart of the public smoking debate, not health.


By Alexstarfire on 10/21/2009 7:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
You're gonna tell me that tar doesn't accumulate in lungs? I know everything doesn't accumulate, but there are some things harder to get rid of than others. Tar being pretty much the hardest.

I don't want to subject myself to even the slightest possibility that it could harm me. It's not even the same as say breathing in CO2, we'd die without it in the air actually, because you don't have a choice to breath without it, not that you'd want to. It shouldn't be someone elses choice that I'm forced to breath something I don't want to.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/21/2009 10:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
You don't get tar from second hand smoke. You get it from direct smoking.


By MamiyaOtaru on 10/21/2009 9:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why the hell would there be a political debate about it in the first place if it wasn't about health?

Are you saying politicians are pandering to non smokers who hate the smell of cigarettes, hoping to gain votes? You know that's actually not a bad idea. I would be more likely to vote for a politician pushing a smoking ban.

Still, you are delusional if you think there are no detriments to health from second hand smoke. I'd be happy to see smoking go away and I don't really care what you think about it. You chose to engage in that odious habit. No one forced it on you.


By Targon on 10/21/2009 10:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
No matter what your arguments about health issues may be, if you personally are doing something that makes me cough, sneeze, or otherwise feel physically ill, then THAT is enough of a reason for me to not want to be FORCED to be near you. And guess what, when in a public place, there really isn't a lot of choice.

So, do non-smokers cause YOU to feel physically ill just by them being near you? Unless they have a problem with body odor, you probably have NO problem being near them, but your being a smoker, and stinking of smoke(clothes) WILL make others have a problem being near you.

If you want to smoke at home, then fine, but even on a busy street the case could be made that your smoking is causing negative effects on those around you, and as such should not be allowed.


By R3T4rd on 10/22/2009 5:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
Do you camp? Regardless if you do or don't, here's my take. In a campfire, when the smoke of the fire comes/blows in your direction constantly, what do you do? You get up and move out of the smoke's way right? You get where I am going with this? No one is "FORCING" you to stay and breathe the smoke from the campfire. And to top it off, some of the wood you burn have even more concentrated toxic chemicals released then the single cigarette I am puffing.

You can always move in public places except in bars and restaraunts - which ofcourse gets me to my final point. It is up to the owner of the establishment if he/she/they choose it to be smoking or non-smoking. If you don't like the smoke in an establishment, go to a different one. No one is forcing you at gun point. If you don't like the smoke but like the establishment, deal with it or take it up with the owners. When I go into an establishment that the owners ban smoking I respect that and don't smoke until I get in my car, get outside, and or I leave the establishment. Simple. I don't campaign and wage a war to force the establishment to go pro-smoking or non-smoking. And this is what irks me when people think its a right for them to force others to do what they see is right by passing laws and regulations.

In the Twin Cities(St. Paul/Minneapolis) in Minnesota -US, they have also brought on a smoking ban. Bar owners, clubs, restaurants, and many other types of establishments have loss over 40%+ in revenue since the smoking ban took affect. Why? Most of thier customers are smokers. People who like to go to the establishment to unwind and relax after a hard day of work. And most of these establishments are Ma and Pa shops. They are all angry but nothing they can do. Some establishments have even closed due to that fact alone because they have lost over 80% revenue. Its not helping at all in this weak economic turmoil as well.

And no, I don't smoke in my house and around my kids. I take it outside, be-it -40 degress celsius or +40 degrees celsius.


By thelostjs on 10/21/2009 5:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
umm gasoline causes cancer. should it be your right not to be around it? oh wait it is. just get on a plane (putting more unburned hydrocarbon carcinogens into the air.) go somewhere without fires, cars, pollution, power plants, radiation, or any kind of industry. breathe easy, but thats about all that you'll be doing, breathing. anything else could put your health at risk


By R3T4rd on 10/22/2009 5:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly my point. There are worse things than a measley scent of cigarette.


By neothe0ne on 10/21/2009 1:48:04 PM , Rating: 3
Are you going to pay for the health care of everyone around you too?

Secondhand smoke. Google it.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/21/2009 3:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm willing to bet that we have all been exposed to second hand smoke in our lives. Please explain to me how my and others healthcare costs have risen because of it ?

Smoke and mirrors. Google it.


By R3T4rd on 10/22/2009 5:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
Couldn't have said it better myself.


By Kuroyama on 10/21/2009 8:25:50 AM , Rating: 5
What do alcohol and tobacco have to do with this? Or are you just happy to tax someone other than yourself? I propose we use gas taxes to fund the military. I hardly drive so I'll be happy with that.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/21/2009 8:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah everything in the country should be free, and we should just pay for it all with those "rich" people's taxes and taxes on other "bad things" like tobacco and alcohol. And when that isn't enough, go to a Euro style VAT tax where everything purchased is taxed 20%+ off the top.

Any other great ideas ?


By therealnickdanger on 10/21/2009 9:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe some sort of certificate-based system (stamps perhaps?) where I can stand in line to get free food. Not too much so that my family feels well-fed, but also not quite enough so that we don't put on extra weight. I'd really like the government to count my calories for me.


By straycat74 on 10/21/2009 9:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but the money I make is for the things I want, not the things I need. If I pay for all of my needs out of my own money, how will I buy all of the fun stuff?


Tracking vehicles will become mandatory.
By reader1 on 10/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Tracking vehicles will become mandatory.
By seamonkey79 on 10/21/2009 8:22:31 AM , Rating: 5
Then the Matrix will have you.

...which, given the poor state of most drivers out there, might not be a bad thing.


RE: Tracking vehicles will become mandatory.
By AlexWade on 10/21/2009 10:23:09 AM , Rating: 4
It is my opinion that no less than 50% of the drivers on the road shouldn't be allowed to drive.


RE: Tracking vehicles will become mandatory.
By Redwin on 10/21/2009 11:07:26 AM , Rating: 1
We take the dangers of driving for granted because it's such a common activity, but the honest reality is, nobody should be piloting a 2000lbs mass at 80mph while surrounded by dozens of others doing the same.

Next time you're on a big freeway, look at all the speeding cars surrounding you, and imagine if the little painted lines weren't there... Suddenly the whole things seems like an AWFULLY bad idea, lol

Driving is statistically (by FAR) the most dangerous thing the average person will ever do in their lives, and they do it nearly every day without thinking about it. The sooner our cars can drive themselves the better, IMO.


RE: Tracking vehicles will become mandatory.
By Noya on 10/21/2009 11:26:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
2000lbs mass at 80mph


I didn't realize everyone was driving a 1990 Miata.

The average mid size family sedan weighs 3,200-3,600lbs, while SUV's weigh 4,000-5,500lbs.


By tdktank59 on 10/21/2009 2:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your only making it worse lol...


By HighWing on 10/22/2009 6:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Next time you're on a big freeway, look at all the speeding cars surrounding you, and imagine if the little painted lines weren't there... Suddenly the whole thing seems like an AWFULLY bad idea.


That is the best quote I've heard in awhile. If you don't mind I'm adding it to my quote database


By Taft12 on 10/21/2009 11:05:40 AM , Rating: 3
It is my opinion you are in the 50% who shouldn't be allowed to drive. Turn in your keys please!


By marvdmartian on 10/21/2009 11:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
More like 85%, imho. But then we wouldn't need so much foreign oil, gasoline taxes coming in would drop to nothing, and they wouldn't have money to maintain the roads for the 15% of people that can actually pilot a vehicle in a safe & sane manner, so everyone would lose! ;)

The idea of killing the gas pedal is almost as good as one of my favorite shows, BaitCar. Always enjoy watching morons get caught in an obvious sting!


By Belard on 10/21/2009 9:35:11 AM , Rating: 3
Already have that in development in some degree.

In the coming years, more and more cars will have automated avoidance systems built-in to help prevent crashes into other cars or people.

The car SEEs people and tracks their movements/paths.

It gives a warning beep if theres a possible problem... and last resort slow/stop the car.

When a car gets the "Stolen" command. The windows should roll up, the music should BLARE really loud (perhaps to ABBA) and the heater on full blast (if in hot climate). Both powered seats are in constant motion. up/down front and back.

The owner can call the OnStar from his cel or other phone with the THEFT code... so it takes a few minutes for the OnStar operator to work with the police. Rather than 16minutes.

Last resort... have the car go BOOM.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki