Will GM Be Driving Your Next New Car?
This is a guest post by automotive columnist Eric Peters.
Big Brother may be about to get just a bit bigger.
General Motors just announced a new and improved version of its OnStar telematics system that could be used to shut your car’s engine off (or at least, cut back the power) remotely.
Touted as a "safety" feature (of course), the upgraded version of OnStar would give external authorities (law enforcement – and, of course, GM) the ability to send out a signal keyed to the car’s on board computer, which in turn would ease off the gas – no matter how hard you’re putting foot down. GPS-equipped cars already can be located in real time at any time, whether moving or stationary. The "enhanced" version of OnStar would, however, be the first use of satellite technology to physically control the vehicle/supersede the driver.
The system goes live in 2009, when GM will begin offering it on more than 1.7 million new cars and trucks. Chevrolet will lead the way – with up to 60 percent of ’09 models fitted with "enhanced" OnStar.
So what’s wrong with the idea? Is it cabin-in-the-woods paranoia to be concerned about what, after all, could be a valuable tool for law enforcement?
The answer depends to a great extent on how much you trust the government.
Certainly, the use of "enhanced" OnStar to stop high-speed car chases and retrieve stolen cars is hard to argue with. But will that be all the technology’s used for?
Consider this:
The insurance industry is at this very moment lobbying Congress to impose electronic speed governors on heavy trucks – limiting them to no faster than 68 mph.
Surprisingly, the trucking industry isn’t completely opposed to the idea – provided electronic speed limiters are also fitted to ordinary passenger vehicles, too. Fair’s fair, right?
Now add a dash of "enhanced" OnStar to the brew.
Come 2009, it will be technically feasible to make speeding impossible. A modern car is controlled by computers; the computers are now tied into GPS systems such as OnStar – which have the ability to send and receive electronic transmissions, including instructions that tell the computer how to run the car. "Smart" speed limit signs can now be fitted with transmitters; when a car with "enhanced" OnStar comes into range, the transmitter tells the car’s computer what the maximum allowable speed shall be – and ye shall drive no faster.
Welcome to the future.
"Technology should not just entertain us or make us more comfortable," croons NHTSA Administrator Nicole R. Nason. "It should make us safer." Of course. And what could be safer than making speeding an impossibility? If you haven’t heard this argument voiced openly, just wait. It’s coming as sure as Lindsay Lohan’s next DWI. The safety nags have been patiently waiting for years for technology to catch up to their agenda.
Courtesy of GM, that day has arrived.
Our friends in the insurance and safety lobbies will soon be urging that this "optional" technology become a mandatory feature on every new car. Speeding is illegal – right? Who is going to argue in favor of allowing the automakers to continue building and selling cars capable of being driven 30, 40, 50 mph faster than the highest lawfully allowable maximum?
What about the children, after all?
And if that’s not alarming enough, consider the likely follow-up. Once all new cars are fitted with in-car speed nannies, the glassy eye of government will very likely turn its gaze upon older cars – especially older pre-computer cars, which can’t be electronically controlled because there is no on-board electronic controller. The old car hobby is already (justly) alarmed by recent changes in antique/classic car licensing and registration laws – which are making it harder and more expensive to keep an older car on the road.
In Virginia, for example, changes to the laws governing antique vehicle registration now empower police to conduct what amount to "road-side safety checks." If the cop decides your antique vehicle doesn’t meet this or that jot or tittle of the law, he can seize your plates on the spot and have your antique vehicle towed to the impound lot – notwithstanding that most cops don’t have any specific knowledge of what is/isn’t "right" about decades-old vehicles.
Now the authorities have a new tool in their kit. A cudgel by which they cannot only beat speeders into submission – but which could very well be used to take older cars off the road forever. Consider yourself warned.
And remember to say "thanks, GM."
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
I stopped buying General Motors cars when they started that “lights on all the time” nonsense. These enhanced features are alarming.
I hope they are liquidated when they go bankrupt. Good riddance to them.
i would buy a used KIA before another GM car
Sorry if my past comment had spelling mistakes
I agree with most of you that the govt is taking alot of freedom away from us, which is not right. If the govt wants to protect us with our consent find so be it. If auto industry wants to give us safety options that great. The only thing that really gets me upset is that when the govt trys to control us or when auto industry like GM trys to regulate our driving. That so not right. The govt really needs to cut the crap with the “its for safety excuse” because thats BS. There intention behind it is basically control. As for GM they really need to trust the public more because there are responsible people out there. Not everbody drives crazy. The govt should offer us safety options and suggestions but they should not have the right what so ever to control us.
Airbags deploying is more than just a scratch…..
Watching the new Onstar commercials where the car swerves to miss a deer then hits a tree then an operators telling the driver helps on the way, I can imagine SNL doing a parody where the drunken driver tells her to mind her own business, its just a scratch and cancel the EMS. Wonder what the statistic’s for Onstar reporting minor accidents & subsequent DUI arrest of driver. I’d be pissed if my own car got me busted.
John, I can sympathize with anyone who has someone killed, particularly by anything other then natural causes. It’s understandable that what ever the cause of a incident it would be your central focus and generate a passionate call to do something to rectifying it. It is however, under those circumstances, not the appropriate time run out and pass new laws or call for more enforcement. Cooler heads should prevail.
This is exactly what MADD and similar organizations have done to get such draconian DUI BAC’s and enforcement tactics passed into laws. They use psychology on politicians. It’s hard for any politician to reject a bill for a new law when their emotions get stirred up. MADD drags someone who has gotten badly hurt or someone’s parents that had a kid die because of a alcohol related accident. Any story, the more dramatic the better. Common sense dictates that you try not to make important decisions in that environment. Unfortunately it’s not illegal for MADD or any other organization to do this.
I just wish our founding fathers would not have written, in some cases, such ambiguous documents. Powerful attorneys and activist judges tend to interpret them the way the see fit. It’s probably a good thing the Constitution was written that far back otherwise under the current mood of our society our nanny state would be far worse.
I don’t think people are going 140 mph, in fact I’ve never seen anyone go much over 80-85mph in my entire life. It sounds like you just don’t trust the human being to be responsible and run his or her own life anymore without help and control from the govt. and thats sad. You and me really don’t belong in the same place. and 2 things; no I won’t be voting for any socialist like Hillary or Obama. and in reading some of these other comments it is clear that my feelings on the subject are in the majority. Goodbye forever freak.
I’m sure that our founding fathers would agree that today’s world is a much different place than it was 250 years ago. When someone close to you is killed by some asshole careening down the highway at twice the speed limit, then manages to leave the scene of the accident and is never caught, your attitude will change. Go vote for Hillary.
I just hope that whoever comes up with this bullshit to keep us all safe and orderly and in our cages has a heart attack and drops dead on the highway because he was on his way to the hospital but couldn’t get there in time cuz he had to not speed. We were not put on this earth to exist as long and as law abiding as possible. It’s a good thing that our founding fathers weren’t such a bunch of nanny douchebags as G.M. & whoever else is for this or we would not be here! Shame on us for crap like this.
Then you’re still a criminal.
Wasting fuel? I would say all of the commuters in VA who drive SUV’s and refuse to carpool are wasting more fuel than speeding wastes.
Fuel economy is gianed by maintaining a contstant speed which city driving does not lend itself well to. You only burn fuel more if you are constantly accelerating and decellerating. Cruising at 70mph or 80mph makes little difference on how much fuel you burn if it is just that cruising. Unless of course you are driving a V10. Like I said, John, you need to get out of the city.
Meg, I regularly drive the I-95 corridor between NYC & DC and believe me, do 75mph and you’re a hazard because you’re holding up everyone else. Doesn’t matter if in KS or VA, still breaking the law and wasting fuel. If you have that need for speed then get a pilot’s license and buy a plane.
I doubt speeding is going to go away. Cities need revenue and one big way to achieve this is for PD’s to catch speeders. Sounds good in theory but I dont think it will work. But who knows?
What happens when a person has an emergency and has to drive their personal vehicle to a hospital but cannot get there in time? I bet if this was imposed we would see a lot of people getting to work late for a while. ;)
Guess I’m a little late on the discussion, However after reading John’s “Best safety feature that could be installed on a vehicle today would be a governor set for the maximum legal speed limit (70?) that couldn’t be tampered with.”
Makes me wonder if he’s ever left the city. I mean seriously have you ever driven across the middle of the country, say Kansas or South Dakota. I’ve driven across both and driving 70 mph is like driving 45 mph on the flat interstae when you can see for 50+ miles in any direction.
I think John should get out more.