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.