GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
"About 3:40 p.m., the vehicle pulled into an enclosed parking lot and then, trying to escape, crashed into an approaching LAPD SUV. Smoke rose from the Volt’s hood."

Nope. Smoke is clearly coming out from aournd the SUV hood and windshield.
Volt 1. Police cruiser 0.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
"About 3:40 p.m., the vehicle pulled into an enclosed parking lot and then, trying to escape, crashed into an approaching LAPD SUV. Smoke rose from the Volt’s hood."

Nope. Smoke is clearly coming out from aournd the SUV hood and windshield.
Volt 1. Police cruiser 0.
Definitely gonna need a new OBCM though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Definitely gonna need a new OBCM though.
And two new windows! LOL

Not smoke. Powder from airbag deployment.
No, it's steam coming from the SUV hood. Yes, airbags can and do emit powder residue but not to that extent and, more importantly, the airbags didn't deploy (see door open @ :14sec). The impact was fairly light; not even a true fender-bender.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
I wonder why they didn't contact OnStart to remotely disable the vehicle they were pursuing. In 40 minutes, you'd think they could have plenty of time to put it into stolen vehicle mode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I wonder why they didn't contact OnStart to remotely disable the vehicle they were pursuing. In 40 minutes, you'd think they could have plenty of time to put it into stolen vehicle mode.
Good point! Disabling the car as early as possible decreases the chance of a catastrophic accident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
How does that work? Does the owner have to give info to police about their car? Can the police trust the license plate on the car they're pursuing actually belong to *that* Volt and not to another Volt? I'm sure a remote disable will still leave the steering and brakes operational, but that could still strand an innocent car (whose plates were stolen and used on the car being pursued, but let me live out my paranoid fantasies) in an uncompromising situation (rail road tracks, maybe).

I think at minimum, police would have rely on the owner reporting it stolen and using their drivers' license to pull up the vehicle registration, confirm the license on the registration matches the license plates on the car they're pursuing, then they can call OnStar and have them remotely disable the car.

I'm thinking this would only take 5-10 minutes if things go smoothly during the records lookup and OnStar call. I'm guessing the owner has to tell OnStar their PIN to confirm they are the owner unless OnStar has some other way to authenticate the police (special phone number?).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,945 Posts
I'm pulling this out of my ass, but...

Police have to get the plate number. Probably from the owner, since they might have a make, partial plate, and color to go on. Volts look unique and all, but not in a "That's a VOLT!" way to the general public, more "Hey, what model is that? It's pretty cool" way. So, find owner if that's not who reported the theft in the first place.

Next, they need the VIN, which they get by looking up the registration from the plate. Need to write that down because not sure what part of VIN is important.

Find and call OnStar's outside number. (Do you know what it is? I don't. I'd have to look it up.)

Wait in whatever hold queue exists for people not calling from their cars already.

Inform OnStar that car is involved in an active police chase and needs disabling. Give PD jurisdiction. Give VIN. OnStar rep initiates check call to PD dispatcher to confirm that this is real, and looks up car by VIN. If OnStar Service is not active, starts activation process using override codes.

Once dispatcher confirms that call from officer is legit and account comes active, OnStar rep ask for confirmation that it's okay to run the disablement so that OnStar is not liable for any problems the disabling will cause, pushes button.

OnStar system initiates contact with car and a couple dozen seconds later, car goes into disable mode, however that's executed. (Personally, I like the idea that it goes all horn honking and lights flashing and stops being able to be accelerated faster than about 15 MPH, but I don't actually know what happens.)

If cops haven't already surrounded vehicle by then, thief flees on foot. Once cops have vehicle secured, this gets relayed to cop on phone with OnStar who tells them they can turn off the disable.

That's pretty fast, but I can easily see the whole process taking 15-20 minutes IF someone's thinking about it. There's probably shortcuts: EG if owner IS onstar subscriber to the right level of service, then the number to call is in the app. The account number to identify the vehicle is in the app. The owner will know the security PIN to authorize the security stop, and the car will already have an active account, so there's no processing there. That'll cut the whole deal down to a couple of minutes, but that kind of depends on having all of that kind of stuff set up in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
hellsop, that's actually pretty exciting to read. Not that I'd want to have my Volt stolen to live out the scenario you described, but man, that'd be some exciting time waiting and witnessing/partaking in the back-and-forth until finally the officer goes:

<puts on sun glasses>

"Disable it."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,945 Posts
but man, that'd be some exciting time waiting and witnessing/partaking in the back-and-forth until finally the officer goes:

<puts on sun glasses>

"Disable it."
Yeah, I've probably watched a few too many cop shows. But tempering that with some understanding of liability and logistics, I think, balances it pretty well.

One of the reasons I lean toward standalone GPS and iPods and the like is the sneaking suspicion that if my car ever gets jacked, I'd REALLY like to have my phone not got with it. So the phone basically never leaves my pocket when I'm driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
hellsop, that's actually pretty exciting to read. Not that I'd want to have my Volt stolen to live out the scenario you described, but man, that'd be some exciting time waiting and witnessing/partaking in the back-and-forth until finally the officer goes:

<puts on sun glasses>

"Disable it."
I have a question though. Why should be the policeman who gives the order and not the owner of the car ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
I have a question though. Why should be the policeman who gives the order and not the owner of the car ?
Purely guessing, but the officer is responsible for public safety while the owner is another avenue to verify the Volt in question is actually being stolen and owner is not driving it. Only the officer has the authority to make the call when it's appropriate/safe to disable the Volt, not the owner. Cop also has input from the pursuit vehicles and can make a better call when to disable than the owner can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
How does that work? Does the owner have to give info to police about their car? Can the police trust the license plate on the car they're pursuing actually belong to *that* Volt and not to another Volt? I'm sure a remote disable will still leave the steering and brakes operational, but that could still strand an innocent car (whose plates were stolen and used on the car being pursued, but let me live out my paranoid fantasies) in an uncompromising situation (rail road tracks, maybe).

I think at minimum, police would have rely on the owner reporting it stolen and using their drivers' license to pull up the vehicle registration, confirm the license on the registration matches the license plates on the car they're pursuing, then they can call OnStar and have them remotely disable the car.
Yeah, but then the owner reports it stolen, has OnStar disable it, only to remember that she actually traded vehicles with her husband that day and at that very moment he was attempting to cross railroad tracks!!! Oh, the humanity!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,945 Posts
Yeah, but then the owner reports it stolen, has OnStar disable it, only to remember that she actually traded vehicles with her husband that day and at that very moment he was attempting to cross railroad tracks!!! Oh, the humanity!!!
Which is why "disable" means "gradually slow down car until it's faster to get out and run". Combine that with other security measures like "ignition lockout" that forbids restarting the car, and location reporting and now you know why I subscribe to the level on OnStar that I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
Thanks for the link !arry4pyro. Of the 3 highlighted examples, only one mentioned an active subscription. Maybe even without a subscription, the remote disable can still be used. Wonder if OnStar then bills you later, similar to ambulance services after you call 911.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,945 Posts
Thanks for the link !arry4pyro. Of the 3 highlighted examples, only one mentioned an active subscription. Maybe even without a subscription, the remote disable can still be used. Wonder if OnStar then bills you later, similar to ambulance services after you call 911.
"I'll be happy to perform the slowdown for you. First, I'll need your VIN and credit card number..." OnStar can probably DO it, but there's surely non-trivial levels of accounting to take care of first.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top