OnStar prevents its first high-speed chase
We were wondering how long it would take before OnStar's Stolen Vehicle Slowdown service was used to prevent a high speed chase. Though announced nearly two years ago, the service that allows OnStar to remotely disable a vehicle's gas pedal is still not yet available on all GM models – for 2010, about 18 of 30 vehicles in the lineup have the capability. Early Sunday morning, however, police in Visalia, California were the first to work with OnStar to remotely disable the engine of a stolen 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe and prevent what would have certainly been a high-speed chase. The vehicle in question was allegedly carjacked by a 21-year-old armed with a sawed off shotgun. The Associated Press reports that the armed assailant pointed a sawed off shotgun at vehicle owner Jose Ruiz and his cousin and demanded their money. After robbing the men, the unwitting thief made off with the Tahoe. Ruiz then found a police officer who called OnStar and had the vehicle tracked, but only after Ruiz gave his permission to do so. OnStar then worked with police to ensure officers were in place to make an arrest, and when the robber made a turn the massive SUV harmlessly came to a stop. OnStar President Walt Dorfstatter told the AP it only took 16 minutes to disable the vehicle. The arrested suspect in the case has been charged with carjacking, robbery, possession of a stolen vehicle and resisting arrest.
Visalia police told the AP that OnStar likely averted a high speed chase, potentially saving lives since most chases end in a crash. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says there were 334 fatalities stemming from high speed chases, with 77 of those deaths of people not directly involved in the chase and five officer fatalities.
[Source: Associated Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Avinash machado 11:03AM (10/20/2009)
Wonder what BoxerFanatic will say.
Reply
BoxerFanatic 11:15AM (10/20/2009)
The same thing I always say. You don't have to wonder.
It is all great news and good press when oversight works well...
Funny how it never makes a headline if it were to be abused, or mistaken.
Police are good at their jobs. They don't need my car to do their bidding. My property belongs to me, not to the state.
Equipment doesn't serve two masters much better than people do.
Orubasarot 11:18AM (10/20/2009)
word boxer
Avinash machado 11:19AM (10/20/2009)
Good points,Boxer.
Tourian 11:24AM (10/20/2009)
@Boxer
Don't fret. I'm sure all the GM haters and sensationalist press will find away to bring you the story of a big brother GM and the government wrongly using their powers in case it ever happens. In the meantime its nice to know stories like rusting Toyotas and their killer floormats don't get swept under the rug either.
James Sonne 11:27AM (10/20/2009)
When the kid at OnStar accidentally disables the wrong vehicle, of one travelling down the interstate in rush hour traffic and causes fatalities, we'll probably never hear about it.
Nixapatfan 12:04PM (10/20/2009)
So how many of you carry cell phones? Use credit cards? Talk on the phone? Use the internet?(can't lie about this one). Oh Noes! Quick get the tin foil hats!
Face it most cars have telematics nowadays, you people just like to whine about OnStar because it's GM.
mentallyretired 12:07PM (10/20/2009)
yes James because rush hour fatal accidents are never reported on by the news or helicopters dedicated to traffic, and fatal accidents never result in trials where the crashes are investigated for trial lawyers.
Neil Schelly 12:29PM (10/20/2009)
You'll hear about an accident, sure. But you won't hear that it's because the car suddenly started ignoring control inputs. If you do, it'll sound like some excuse the guy-at-fault is using to get out of the blame. You'll never know that OnStar screwed up or was abused or worse, hacked.
-N
James Sonne 12:31PM (10/20/2009)
@ mentallyretired:
Not usually by national media coverage, no they're not.
The fact of the matter is that this technology gives someone whom I do not know trivial access to critical functions of my car. Why would I trust that unknown person to always have my best interests in mind, or that that power will be protected to the utmost from those of ill repute? It's simply that simple.
daleam 12:43PM (10/20/2009)
All potentially valid points which fail to recognize one glaring fact: The owner opts in to this service by activating OnStar. Until I hear of one case where the owner of a car has his car disabled without his permission, I dismiss all these arguments.
chad.dawkins 12:54PM (10/20/2009)
There are also a bunch of safeguards to prevent it from disabling the wrong car. For example it flashes the lights of the vehicle to make sure hte cops are behind the right SUV.
matt234 1:15PM (10/20/2009)
You guys who dismiss OnStar because of trust issues, do you ever go to the doctor's office? Do you purchase food? Do you trust that oncoming traffic will stay in its lane? Do you trust that your government has your best interest in mind? Never mind, don't answer that question.
But why is OnStar so different from other "risks" you expose yourself to? Are we supposed to build stone walls between our properties and all grow our own food while polishing our revolvers, so we have no need to place trust in anyone?
I'm honestly curious about this. Please explain your point of view with some more background information.
James Sonne 1:34PM (10/20/2009)
@matt234:
I trust that people do at every moment what is in their best interest. The reason most people don't steal from others is because there's more for them to lose than gain. The risk does not outweigh the reward. Some people steal because the gain outweighs the potential loss, either for financial or social (i.e. gangs) reasons.
Thanks to many laws, MOST people find more to gain by helping others than from harming others. However, there will always be people that have more to gain from harming others than they have to lose. These people are the few that mug you for your wallet, steal your identity, or install malware on your computer.
How long before one of the hundreds of millions of personal computers that are apart of botnets with keyloggers installed will log the OnStar sign-in and password information, giving a hacker the ability to log into your car via OnStar and unlock the doors, or turn the ignition off for the fun of it, just like some viruses wipe computer hard drives simply for the fun of it. Why would I willingly put myself in that kind of position? Innumerable people have their identity stolen every day via that same mechanism, now I'm going to offer up the ability to access my car in a similar fashion? Why? What benefit does it provide me? Who cares if they turn my car off and catch a crook? The insurance company pays for my car, and cops have been nabbing crooks for centuries without OnStar. It seems to me that it ONLY provides me with a NEGATIVE. All of its services are redundant at best.
I trust most other people to drive on the correct side of the road because it is in their best interest to do so. However, on occassion, someone does sway into the other lane because they're not paying attention, because they have dementia, or because they're psychotic. That's why I keep my eyes on the road when I drive ... don't you? I mean, seriously, don't you watch where you're driving?
The reasoning that there's an opt-in requirement is a joke. The only opt-in part is in the OnStar database based on your monthly payment. There's no switch you can flip to deactivate the OnStar system in your car. You do not have control over that process. Isn't this exactly why most of us on AutoBlog drive cars with manual transmissions, or automatics with gear selections? Because we want more control over our cars? How does this jive with that philosophy?
It's not that I'm 'scared' of other people. I trust that most everyone out there is going to behave rationally. I also realize there are some people out there that won't. I don't walk into a dark alley with coke dealers at the end. I prefer not to give someone else the opportunity to turn my car on and off.
Sure there are company policies and laws to prohibit that kind of thing, but all they do is prohibit. If someone with an upside down risk ratio is in that position, I have no control to stop them from harming me. Why volunteer for that?
bee jaytee 1:47PM (10/20/2009)
@James: I trust in people, too - namely, that they will ditch OnStar the moment that (a) its employees try to mess with a person's car without their consent, or (b) its hacker defenses are proven to be nothing more than Swiss cheese.
Julius 2:08PM (10/20/2009)
@ James Sonne:
"There's no switch you can flip to deactivate the OnStar system in your car. "
Actually, you could just disconnect the antenna. I actually removed the OnStar control box in my '02 Trailblazer (I didn't keep the service). Took 3 minutes.
matt234 2:10PM (10/22/2009)
@James. Actually, you misunderstood my intention. Those analogies were not meant to dispute that OnStar can be hacked, or otherwise used for bad intentions. That's all true. I was just saying it is a small risk relative to other risks in life. "bee jaytee" puts it well.
Shamdiddly 11:06AM (10/20/2009)
Nice outcome.
Reply
Paul 11:09AM (10/20/2009)
Awesome/scary... take your pick.
Reply
Coolio 11:12AM (10/20/2009)
It's awesome. Read it again, schlomo.