I want to remotely disable Londoners' cars, says Met's top cop Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe wants the capital's cops to be able to remotely disable people's cars, he told the London Assembly's police and crime committee today. Hogan-Howe made the comments as part of a wider discussion between police and elected assembly members on police tactics for stopping …
" the CAA aren't very keen on medium sized drones working that would be quick enough and would stay in the air long enough to get involved in pursuit."
I should bloody well hope not. An operator that's concentrating on following a speeding car through urban roads is not going to be able to also avoid obstacles. A car driver can because it's all in the same place, the road route in front. A drone pilot watching the road can't also separately watch the aerial route.
And I doubt if a drone can corner as well as a car can, especially among buildings.
Flying high enough to avoid everything will lose sight of the car as soon as it takes a few corners.
Wonderful thing that, finding amusement in a misspelled word. It thoroughly describes the limited potential of the mind that found joy therein. The word "Hecalopter" may also, of course, be the result of a condition such as dyslexia, and I know how much we all like to laugh at those kind of things.
I don't see any reason an automated drone couldn't follow a car and avoid obstacles. If it is traveling at say 200 ft up there isn't too much to hit, and what there is should be easily avoidable. The problem is that the driver can take advantage of the drone's weaknesses and 1) drive near an airport where the drone wouldn't be permitted, 2) drive on streets lined by big trees that will obscure it (though maybe IR will get around that) and 3) drive through tunnels, parking garages, etc.
Or better yet perhaps a small drone that follows the car closely at roof height, and shoots a magnetic GPS tracker onto the rear license plate?
" If it is traveling at say 200 ft up there isn't too much to hit" ... when it's engine inevitably fails, I think you will find in an urban environment there is quite a lot of fleshy things to hit.
The current CAA rules prohibit single engine flight over built up areas ... the rule is you have to be able to land clear, in the event of an engine failure. I don't think any of the current drone technology would get close to that requirement.
200ft up in varying light conditions, you also forget tunnels, bridges etc which will obstruct view as well as similar vehicles of type/make/model. Keeping the correct vehicle targeted may prove more difficult than you expect as it's unable to even read the registration plate of the car.
Most of these problems could be worked out in time though and obviously reduced with the help of a dedicated drone pilot assisting.
I don't know how long it was since Howe was involved in a car chase...
One of the problems of purely airborne pursuit is, what the hell do you do when the car stops? Out jump the subjects of interest and they scamper in several different directions. Now you need three drones, etc.
You need several cars in close pursuit so that there's a bunch of rozzers on foot giving chase ASAP. No point them being half a mile away, not in a city. Otherwise it's too easy for most of them to evade capture.
So I can see why he'd want to slow a car down, it makes the unavoidable chase shorter and safer. But I can't see there being any technological means of achieving that without legal measures to mandate a back door. Talk of EMP type devices is bollocks - so many others have been there, tried that, doesn't work (nukes excepted), especially on old cars without ECUs and would cause immense problems for anyone else nearby.
So it would have to be a back door, which would be unpopular and not omnipresent for decades to come even if they started adding them today, so would be useless anyway.
The whole thing is a pipe dream, better off buying more helicopters and pursuit cars and manning them. He's basically politely saying that there's an awareness of hypothetical but impractical technological solutions to the problems of car chases going wrong, but shit happens and there's not a lot we can do to prevent it completely.
On the back of the "backdoor" to slow the vehicle, have an automate door lock (for 5 minutes). Should be plenty of time for police to get to the vehicle and make an arrest. Auto door lock could be released remotely in life threatening situations eg entry into canals / rivers etc. Joy riders would also have to carry a window smashing tool in this case.
Another idea for towns, have bollards embeded in all roads so that when the stolen car passes over, the bollard can be triggered, disabling the car. eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU7VNnuanhA
Another idea for towns, have bollards embeded in all roads so that when the stolen car passes over, the bollard can be triggered, disabling the car. eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU7VNnuanhA
The general idea with stolen cars is to retrieve the car and catch the thieves...
You've just trashed the car, the thieves are off on their toes, and the wreck is blocking your pursuit.
Those aren't anti-theft bollards, those are to keep public drivers out of bus only and restricted areas.
And this is why they should use the predator style drones... Switch out those missiles for alternative non-lethal (optional :P) enforcement and take them down.
The police can follow at a 'safe' distance with a few cars and a van and throw them all in once they ditch the car and are 'apprehended' by drone.
>what the hell do you do when the car stops?
It may be good for a police drama, to have the rozzers chase down a gang of criminals, and grab them on the street (knocking over stacks of cardboard boxes) - but in most cases, all that's really required is to identify the perps. Once that is done, you can roll up and arrest them at your convenience (without creating a lethal car chase).
Before embarking on any adventure, first ascertain what you're trying to achieve.
Packs of drones would be much better. They can split up if the targets try and scatter or cover multiple exits of tunnel systems or other covered areas where the drones might not be able to enter. Plus you get the additional benefit of redundancy in the event that one fails (or is shot down).
"I should bloody well hope not. An operator that's concentrating on following a speeding car through urban roads is not going to be able to also avoid obstacles. A car driver can because it's all in the same place, the road route in front. A drone pilot watching the road can't also separately watch the aerial route"
Sorry to disillusion you but the police accident figures disprove that statement.
The met cowboys round here drive like maniacs. It's very noticeable how different the Fire and Ambulance / Paramedics are.
Haagen-Daas was Terrorist-May's pet poodle. Lock 'em up together in the same padded cell and throw away the key.
....that the police DON'T want to use military-style Predator/Reaper drones! I'd have thought they would be demanding them, complete with Hellfire AGMs to "help them win TWAT". After all, it's not like they might take out some innocent Brazilian by mistake, is it?
Oh, wait....
(Icon as we don't have a drone one)
They don't want to shoot missiles at the car, they "merely" want a directed EMP weapon to scramble the car's electronics (and somehow magically not bork a bunch of other cars, traffic signals, people's phones, etc. in the process)
A drone with a missile might do less damage, because at least then they'd be less tempted to use it when people are around!
....that the police DON'T want to use military-style Predator/Reaper drones! I'd have thought they would be demanding them, complete with Hellfire AGMs to "help them win TWAT".
This is the British police we're talking about here, most of whom do not want to carry arms and are well trained to try to defuse a situation without violence. They don't always get it right, but lethal force is generally a last resort, not a first, unlike some places.
Perhaps they could come up with a one-size fits all technology here.
Options include
1. Moving the car over to the left lane so that others can pass (stop the outside lane hog)
2. Speeding up the car in front, so its not dawdling along at half the speed that everyone else wants to go at.
3. Slowing it down when Mr plod wants to have a chat.
Sure Mr Musk could sell on some of his IP in detecting a clear piece of road and detecting "empty" adjacent lanes.
You could even make it fun for the occupant - give the offending vehicle the message of "moving left" "speeding up" or "you're nicked" before it does it for them.
A criminal by definition does not follow the rules. So if they make all cars have remote kill switches, the criminals will either have cars modified to not have the backdoor, or will start seeking out classic cars for their jobs, which lack all the computer based gimmickry.
However there is something more concerning in the interview. The Police commissioners statement that "we'd have a device that slowed down the car in front." In front of what? The criminals trying to get away? So the police want to start using innocent bystanders as weapons to slow down or stop criminals in a getaway car? Really?
Assuming the criminals are in a car that has been modified to ignore the kill signal, what is to stop them ramming their way past? This sounds like a recipe for disaster. To deliberately create dangerous situations and cause accidents with the general public in order to stop criminals getting away. Mental.
Ignoring the fact that as with anything else computer based and connected to the net, eventually hackers will also get access. So now criminals (presumably ramming their way through cars slowed by the police) can also slow down the public's cars in order to cause blockages for the pursuing police cars, which presumably either give up the chase or themselves start ramming cars out of the way. Sounds like a recipe for a complete mess.
And of course, those who just want to cause chaos by disabling cars on motorways/roads at random. Worst case scenario you get a massive pile up, best case you can cause complete traffic gridlock.
From the sound of the interview, I don't think the commissioner referred to driverless cars in particular. It seems he would like a tool they could fire to disrupt the electrics in any car and shut it down. Backdoor or not. This has already been proven not to work (at least not while leaving the car occupants unharmed).
However with the coming "always connected" cars, I suspect the commissioners bright idea will be possible to implement, and as such they will push very hard for it, thinking it will solve all their problems. I foresee a spike in the prices of "pre-internet-connected era" second hand cars, at least until any car without a kill device is deemed not road legal.
Don't knock volvo's toughness, I once had to climb a tree to get my numberplate back, apart from a couple of dents, and the missing no. plate the car was fine and drove for another year or so... also had some numpty run into the back of it in a saxo... no noticable damage on the volvo yet the saxo was totally mullered...
>Shouldn't be that difficult to Tempest screen the engine computer in a typical car, seeing as how it is already surrounded by a lot of metal as it is.
I think it would. Car engines already produce a hell of a lot of electrical noise, so your cars computers are already heavily hardened against EMF radiation. That is why they are usually put in the passenger cabin, for extra shielding from the engine by the firewall. Your tempest screen would have to cover all the glass windows in the cabin, which would render them opaque.
Also, to be able to supply enough noise to defeat the EMF hardening while not causing problems to the car occupants is almost impossible. You really have to pump a shedload of EMF in order to induce the ECU to throw a wobbly. They are deliberately designed to resist EMF interference. And you would have to pump it into the cabin, where you can't really avoid microwaving the meatbags as well. Bad luck if anyone has a pacemaker for starters.
This idea was floated in the US years ago (I imagine after someone saw it in a Fast and Furious movie, where such a device was shown), and was proven to not work that well in reality.
For the effort to shield the ECU, you might as well convert the engine to run on carburettors/points and ditch the electronics anyway.
> That would be a lot less obvious that robbing a bank in 35 year old car.
Although it would add back some class I have to say. Like back when bank jobs were done with modified mk II Jags.
In reality though, I doubt many jobs would be using 4 wheeled vehicles at all. The last few jobs I read about were pretty much exclusive to 2 wheelers. Logically, as bikes are cheap, fast, can go between traffic, on pavements, down narrow passageways, etc.... and some can hold a not indecent amount of loot. 5 blokes on bikes can probably take a decent amount of jewels/shiny and make a getaway, bonus points if they all go in different directions.
Also, bikes are unlikely to ever have remote connected stuff like cars, and even if they do, they are unlikely to have kill switches. Having a bike suddenly lose power or cut out would be far more deadly than in a car, both to the unwitting driver and pedestrians.
The engine computer is just a board. Surely you could wrap it in a grounded screen and call it good? Might take a few hours to disassemble the dash to get to it depending how deeply it is buried, but considering all the DIYers who replace the chip in their engine computer to change timing and improve performance a little bit (or a lot if its a turbo) it can't be that difficult.
I have to think refitting a modern engine to work with a carb would be WAY WAY harder than that.
> The engine computer is just a board. Surely you could wrap it in a grounded screen and call it good?
Not really. Your ECU already has that setup, so there is nothing for you to add there. Hence me mentioning that ECUs are already designed to resist EM noise, which is why an "EMF gun" is not really feasible.
However, all the wires leading in and out of the ECU would act like antennas and pick up the EMF as well. In theory, If you pump in enough noise you could cause garbage data signals to be sent to the ECU, which could confuse it and cause some problems.
If you wanted to resist the hypothetical EMF gun, you would have to shield all those wires (up till the sensor endpoints). Considering they spider all over the car, it would be quite a feat to shield all of it. You would literally have to rip the entire car apart, shield every single trunk/wire in the loom, then reassemble it.
Quite frankly, in my mind a carb conversion would be easier, because you only have to do work on the engine itself, run a steel cable to the "go" pedal, and disconnect the ECU.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
