"Police ministers from across the country will discuss remote engine immobilisers after a Queensland police officer was hit by an allegedly stolen car last month.

Constable Peter McAulay was mowed down at Booval, west of Brisbane, while trying to stop it with road spikes.

He was critically injured and faces a long recovery.

The Queensland Police Union has been campaigning for high-tech immobilisers, which can kill the engine of stolen cars remotely, to be fitted in all new cars for several years.

"Every time we have one of these instances it prompts us to try harder to get these safety measures in place," union president Ian Leavers said.

"ABS and airbags at one stage were out of the reach of many people, now you can’t buy a car without them.

"There's still a long road ahead however we in Australia really need to embrace technology to assist in fighting crime, stopping terrorism and keeping the community safe.

"This remote engine immobiliser technology is available right now and if we mandated it in all new cars sold, as we have previously done with ABS brakes and airbags, then it a few years' time, most cars on the road would possess this technology, so I call on all governments across Australia to support our proposals."

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/10/18/18/48/immobilisers-queensland-police-ministers-meeting

What think ye?

Every car or truck, bus or bike every state as soon as possible, innocents die in police chases

Belly,

It may be a good idea but there are sure to be some downsides.

Would the police have to be in visual contact at the time?

Shutting off the engine also shuts off the power steering and brakes, so the steering suddenly becomes excessively heavy and very high pressure is needed on the brake pedal.

If the vehicle was immobilized out of visual contact an accident might be precipitated.

//What think ye?//

I don't see why they think we need some fancy new hardware for this; our current level technology already allows them to do this to a lot of modern vehicles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK0SrxBC1xs

Obviously it's not going to work on older cars, but they wouldn't have the remote immobilisers either. The police just need to hire themselves some decent geeks.

Not much point if they were fitted to new cars only. It's easier to steal older cars too. How many officers are killed by drivers of stolen cars? How many officers have been run down by any motorist. Fair bit of emotion involved in the police union's call. It would not be a good political move for any government; new car buyers are paying too much for cars in Australia already.

A knee jerk reaction to an unfortunate, but very rare, incident. No a goer in my view.

ttbn - "A knee jerk reaction to an unfortunate, but very rare, incident."

It is not about the incident.

It would prevent a lot more incidents of car chases turning into deaths of people and damage to property also car thefts.

But if the police can stop a car so can someone with the know how and skill it could be used for criminal purposes.

Philip S,

"But if the police can stop a car so can someone with the know how and skill it could be used for criminal purposes"

Very valid point; I imagine it could be a hackers' delight.

Immobilisers are a great idea under certain circumstances.

Courts in NSW use immobilisers as a preference to harsher methods for drunk driving recidivist.

The vehicle is immobilised until a breath test unlocks the ignition.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-car-device-that-allows-drink-drivers-back-behind-the-wheel-20160423-godf18.htm

Many auto manufacturers already have their cars run a battery of tests to ensure the car model is safe and durable. Maybe before requiring all cars to have immobilizers, we can rig up a few cars with crash test dummies and the immobilizers to see how it fairs in action to turn off the engine in the kind of situtions that these would be used for. (Expecially when considering different car body types, or weather conditions).

I can't see much wrong with the cops being able to stop one car, provided it was only one chosen car. If they were to turn off an entire expressway of cars, disaster would be inevitable.

Yes the steering would become heavier, but I can drive my old cars without power steering even at my age without problems. The brakes would be unaffected for a number of applications, so should not present a problem.

Personally I don't see much wrong with offenders, be it drivers, or drug addicts or criminals being harmed by the result of their actions, if it prevents other innocents being hurt.

Not really sure what path to take with this one.
Obviously I would think it's another example of Big Brother in the form of transport control grid and I hate it.
But that said, I always look at the pro's and con's;
- Have to look at the other side too.

Say a drink driver were driving recklessly and police had the potential to stop them, and didn't.
And say that drink driver went on to accidentally hit innocent pedestrians and childlen, killing or injuring them greatly.
I imagine at this point even the drink driver themselves may have wished their car had an immobilser to prevent when eventuated.

And I can see a situation occurring where this will happen and the public will be outraged at the needless suffering or loss of life, knowing it could've been prevented and then it will definitely be mandated, because it will be considered negligent not to.

Fighting a fire with fire appears to work but fighting morons with morons creates more problems.
A National Service would reduce the number of morons on the roads & the force.