OnStar to Stop Thiefs

[Whelan]

That's right! I thought this was awesome when I heard it. Apparently OnStar already recovers 700-800 cars per month with their service, but now they are going to incorporate the ability to slow the car down to a stop when reported stolen, notify police, and also get on the speakers to the thief and tell them to give up because police are watching them, LOL! I wonder if they will eventually have add-on kits for older OnStar cars, that would be sick. Makes me think even more about my next car being a GM. I seriously think the others need to get on board with this technology. For $199 a year or $16.95 a month, I'd so get it.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300462,00.htmlGM's OnStar Service to Stop Stolen VehiclesTuesday , October 09, 2007Say some clown steals your car from the parking deck at work.If it's equipped with General Motors' (GM) OnStar service, he could be in for a big surprise and you could get a little revenge — and even see your car again.Starting with about 20 models for 2009, the service will be able to slowly halt a car that is reported stolen, and the radio may even speak up and tell the thief to pull over because police are watching.OnStar already finds 700 to 800 cars per month using the Global Positioning System. With the new technology, which OnStar President Chet Huber said GM will apply to the rest of its lineup in future years, OnStar would call police and tell them a stolen car's whereabouts.Then, if officers see the car in motion and judge it can be stopped safely, they can tell OnStar operators, who will send the car a signal via cell phone to slow it to a halt."This technology will basically remove the control of the horsepower from the thief," Huber said. "Everything else in the vehicle works. The steering works. The brakes work."GM is still exploring the possibility of having the car give a recorded verbal warning before it stops moving.A voice would tell the driver through the radio speakers that police will stop the car, Huber said, and the car's emergency flashers would go on."If the thief does nothing else it will coast to a stop. But they can drive off to the side of the road," Huber said.With the current version of OnStar, drivers can call operators for emergency help, and OnStar operators will contact a car if its sensors detect a crash. The service has about 5 million subscribers.Those who want OnStar but don't like police having the ability to slow down their car can opt out of the service, Huber said. But he said their research shows that 95 percent of subscribers would like that feature.OnStar, including the first year's subscription fee, is standard on most of GM's 2008 vehicles. After the first year, the subscription price is $16.95 a month or $199 annually for basic service, which is to include the stolen-vehicle slowdown feature when it's available.GM would be willing to sell the technology to other automakers in an effort to cut police chases, Huber said.The new technology likely gives OnStar and GM a leg up on competitors that market vehicle tracking devices aimed at retrieving stolen vehicles, said Jack Nerad, executive market analyst for Kelley Blue Book in Irvine, Calif.He predicted being able to stop a stolen car would appeal to consumers."Once they hear it can be done, I think it will get considerable play," he said.LoJack Corp. (LOJN), of Westwood, Mass., produces vehicle tracking devices that help authorities locate stolen vehicles but not communicate with them. And SPAL USA (SPAL) in Ankeny, Iowa, sells an anti-car-jacking system with a personal identification transmitter that prevents thieves from using the vehicle.If it spreads, the technology could make dangerous police chases a thing of the past. Last year, 404 people were killed nationwide in crashes involving police pursuits, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.In California, for example, there were 7,633 police pursuits in 2006, leading to 27 deaths and 771 injuries, according to data from the California Highway Patrol.Those figures represented a decline from 2005, when California authorities were involved in 7,950 pursuits, which were linked to 32 deaths and 1,201 injuries.Joe Farrow, deputy commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, said about 15 percent of the pursuits are at speeds of 90 miles per hour and greater. The OnStar system could help chases end safely, he said.Farrow said his agency has sought public-private partnerships that could improve technologies used in police pursuits. The OnStar system was intriguing, he said."There are some high-speed chases that we have out here that we'd like to bring to a halt," he said.Farrow said CHP officers are trained on pursuits every three months and the agency has worked to improve its chase policies.OnStar's technology could evolve and perhaps make a stolen car impossible to start, Huber said."This isn't the last announcement you'll hear from us in this category," he said.

[Kamikaze]

I don't know if I like the onstar, and pay for just another service, phone, interent, XM (if you have it) cable... Onstar... you get the picture.I think if your car has the button for onstar, and you don't use it, or pay for it, but then your car get's stolen, you should be able to pay a $50 fee or something for a "1 time use" and have them locate and stop the car.

[NibCrom]

Quote, originally posted by Kamikaze »I don't know if I like the onstar, and pay for just another service, phone, interent, XM (if you have it) cable... Onstar... you get the picture.I think if your car has the button for onstar, and you don't use it, or pay for it, but then your car get's stolen, you should be able to pay a $50 fee or something for a "1 time use" and have them locate and stop the car.$200 is pretty expensive. I'd rather have a one time fee too for vehicle recovery. I mean if I was driving a Z06 it would probably be worth it, but I wouldn't get it for my Vibe. (not that I like it any less than a Corvette. )

[Whelan]

$200 = 1 year$16.67 = 1 month$0.56 = 1 day$0.02 = per hour

[ragingfish]

Quote, originally posted by Kamikaze »I don't know if I like the onstar, and pay for just another service, phone, interent, XM (if you have it) cable... Onstar... you get the picture.I think if your car has the button for onstar, and you don't use it, or pay for it, but then your car get's stolen, you should be able to pay a $50 fee or something for a "1 time use" and have them locate and stop the car.I used to think that way. When I got my G6, I got onstar in it. Frankly, it's been worth every penny. When I had transmission problems, and I got a CEL, I pulled over, called onstar. They pulled the codes, called my dealership, and gave them the codes.When I got hit by a deer the day after i bought the car, and was so shaken I couldn't drive, i called onstar. They pinpointed my location, contacted local PD, gave them my location, and put me in conference with the dispatcher.If I ever get locked out of my car, I can pick up my cell, call onstar, and they can send a signal to unlock the doors.And I love the monthly vehicle diagnostics emails I get.IMHO, it's worth every penny I pay. On another note, I highly doubt current and/or past onstar systems will be compatible with this new technology. While the current system can communicate with some onboard systems for diagnostic purposes, I don't think it has the ability to actually control those systems.

[Whelan]

Monthly diagnostics email FTW!!!

[CountryVibe]

I think the only way they can "remove the control of the horsepower" and still make everything else work is with the DBW system because they can cut the signal to the throttle

[prathman]

I wouldn't be too confident in the ability of OnStar type systems to deter the more sophisticated auto thieves. AFAIK, this system depends on cellular phone communication back to the central control and there are readily available (albeit illegal in the US) jamming devices available to block those signals. And it shouldn't be too hard for thieves to figure out how to permanently disable the OnStar circuitry once they have possession of the car.

[ragingfish]

Quote, originally posted by prathman »I wouldn't be too confident in the ability of OnStar type systems to deter the more sophisticated auto thieves. AFAIK, this system depends on cellular phone communication back to the central control and there are readily available (albeit illegal in the US) jamming devices available to block those signals. And it shouldn't be too hard for thieves to figure out how to permanently disable the OnStar circuitry once they have possession of the car.Most "sophisticated" auto thieves aren't gonna be stealing my Pontiac. lol!More likely to be someone who is looking for a joyride or some sorta temporary wheels. IMHO anyway.One nice thing about Onstar is it will be standard soon, which means GM can very tightly integrate the system into the car's other functions, perhaps making it possible that a failure of the onstar system to pass certain tests could render the car immobile. I can think of several reasons why that scenario is bad, but you get my general thought...

[Whelan]

That makes sense, they even said this is just the beginning, they are working on a system that wont even let them start the car, somehwat similar to the deactivation of the ignition system in my Honda but more high tech. I could def. see them setting it up with a fail safe of some sort where if the system is tampered with, it automatically shuts the car down and they can only tow the thing. Especially with ETB's now.

[ragingfish]

Quote, originally posted by Whelan »I could def. see them setting it up with a fail safe of some sort where if the system is tampered with, it automatically shuts the car down and they can only tow the thing. Especially with ETB's now.I suspect if that ability comes along (which all indicators are it will soon), they will also integrate an ability to remotely "reactivate" the engine, so the actual owner can call, prove their identity, and have their car turned back on, in case of some sorta hiccup that inadvertently disables the engine. If cars had to be towed every time it happened, there would be a riot among owners...and possibly dealerships too (if there's a flood of cars showing up just to be "reactivated").

[prathman]

Quote, originally posted by Whelan »I could def. see them setting it up with a fail safe of some sort where if the system is tampered with, it automatically shuts the car down and they can only tow the thing. Especially with ETB's now.That would be very difficult to do. Lots of places where I drive have no cellular coverage and there's no way for the system to know if the reason for not getting a signal is because of lack of coverage or because a thief has disabled and/or jammed the antenna.And triggering the disable mechanism upon any failure of the OnStar system could easily backfire in terms of customer satisfaction. People aren't going to be very happy if their car leaves them stranded in the desert because some non-critical electronics component, like a GPS chip or cellphone part, fails and therefore won't let the car run.

[Whelan]

That would then have them go off of satellites, service everywhere!

[prathman]

Quote, originally posted by Whelan »That would then have them go off of satellites, service everywhere!Except in parking garages, tunnels, some bridges, a few urban canyons, or the dense redwood forest where I was yesterday. Still enough locations where I wouldn't want my car to stop working just because it lost communications.

[Whelan]

Well they cant stay in a tunnel forever, or on a bridge, at least not without being trapped on either side.LOL we could go back and forth all day.Let's also not forget that the police are starting to use EMPs on cars. Like 2F2F, they really use those spike things to deactivate cars, maybe not in the same manner but similar. And they also have little rocket powered RC cars that shoot from the front of the cruiser with an antenna and when the antenna gets under the stolen car, it shuts it down.

[prathman]

Quote, originally posted by Whelan »Well they cant stay in a tunnel forever, or on a bridge, at least not without being trapped on either side.I think you're missing the point. The thief wouldn't be in a tunnel/bridge/redwood forest - he'd be driving to a garage where the car can be disassembled and sold as parts. But he's disabled the OnStar antenna so the system thinks it's in an area with bad reception. So how long would the GM designer think is the maximum that there can be bad reception? I.e. how long should the system wait before disabling the car. If he thinks it could be for 30 minutes or more then it probably gives the thief enough time to reach his garage. But yesterday in the forest I was outside of either satellite or cellular coverage for a few hours and I wouldn't have been happy to have my car stop working.There are much cheaper and more effective approaches to preventing car theft and many of the best are installed by the individual car owner so the thief has no chance of knowing the details of the protection ahead of time.

[michaelgt]

Quote, originally posted by ragingfish »I used to think that way. When I got my G6, I got onstar in it. Frankly, it's been worth every penny. When I had transmission problems, and I got a CEL, I pulled over, called onstar. They pulled the codes, called my dealership, and gave them the codes.When I got hit by a deer the day after i bought the car, and was so shaken I couldn't drive, i called onstar. They pinpointed my location, contacted local PD, gave them my location, and put me in conference with the dispatcher.If I ever get locked out of my car, I can pick up my cell, call onstar, and they can send a signal to unlock the doors.And I love the monthly vehicle diagnostics emails I get.IMHO, it's worth every penny I pay. On another note, I highly doubt current and/or past onstar systems will be compatible with this new technology. While the current system can communicate with some onboard systems for diagnostic purposes, I don't think it has the ability to actually control those systems.And if you have GMAC Insurance, you can get a discount based on the miles you drive because of the Onstar Diagnostics reporting your mileage.

[Whelan]

Well you would have the tamper proof be integrated into the car. So if the thief cuts or tries to tamper with any of the wiring of the OnStar system it shuts down, making the car unable to move and if he carjacked it and tried to remove it while it was running, car shuts down internally as a safety measure. You wouldn't need a 3rd party involvement for the tampering of the unit.So in the open, the OnStar operator has control where there is a signal. But if there is no signal and the perp tries to tampe with the unit in anyway, the failsafe kicks in and shuts the car down or just disables it from starting. I guess the only way this would be an issue is if the signal goes down and OnStar cannot stop the vehicle, but by that point police will have the GPS tracking from OnStar to be able to find the car in a given area.The system is not the end all, but integrated with GPS, this system, and police, it is a very potent deterrent and recovery system.

[prathman]

Quote, originally posted by Whelan »Well you would have the tamper proof be integrated into the car. So if the thief cuts or tries to tamper with any of the wiring of the OnStar system it shuts down, making the car unable to move and if he carjacked it and tried to remove it while it was running, car shuts down internally as a safety measure. You wouldn't need a 3rd party involvement for the tampering of the unit.So in the open, the OnStar operator has control where there is a signal.All the thief has to do is place a small inexpensive jamming device near the antenna or cover it with some grounded aluminum foil. In either case there's no detectable tampering and the OnStar receiver just hears noise, which is the same as it would in an area with poor reception. So it won't shut down the car since it can't determine if there's any signal available.

[Whelan]

The OnStar operator wouldnt need to interfere. I am talking about ruling them out completely in some cases buy having it hardwired to the engine or throttle control. So a jammer wouldnt work cause there is nothing to jam, foil would no do much, they would physically have to cut the wire, and once that was done, they would be going nowhere.You also talking about a more professional thief here. I am referring to guys who jump in cars and go for rides or what not. There is no 100% way to thief proof a car, if they want it, they'll get it.Jeep even came out with a system in a concept car the original Commander, that had a face and voice recognition and if you were the thief, the car would not start. Literally you would need some kind of recognition prior to vehicle start.

[Kamikaze]

Jeep with face/voice recognition: thief: wait outside till vehicle starts, then steal.