Car Chases--Why Not Shoot The Engines?

[Jeff White]

If they were legal here, I couldn't even imagine doing a PIT maneuver or something similar with the Impala I am assigned now......

Jeff

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Shooting engines is great, especially with a shotgun (slug) or higher powered rifle. Now, aside from the fact that the car is moving quickly, the firing officer will probably be in another moving car, and the fact that most officers have no real idea where the "engine" is on a car to shoot it (versus all the other crap crammed into the compartment) and the fact that if a shot misses on one side, it very well may go out the other, then no problem. Otherwise, it is a simple matter of not knowing the target, not knowing the ever changing backstop was the vehicle roars do the road, and not knowing the "beyond" of the target and backstop that is ever changing.

With all that in mind and if you are willing to risk the lives of bystanders because you know you can make the shot that will stop the engine, reduce the risk to the bystanders and just shoot the driver*. As with the stolen tank a few years ago, the driver was shot because of the risk he posed to society while driving the tank. Surely speeding bad guys break enough laws and endanger enough lives where lethal force can be used, at least sometimes, right?

* = only do so where legally valid and with all proper legal, social, and ethnical considerations addressed appropriately.

Of course the other option is that you play Dr. Phil on a PA system as you chase the bad guys and they will eventually commit suicide as a way to get away from Dr. Phil's annoying voice.

 

[RecoilRob]

This is someone's pipe dream. Please provide a link to pending legislation or even a proposal by someone in the govt.?

Ediited to add: The last motorist assist that I did that was generated by ONSTAR gave us a location four miles from where the car actually was. I'd hardly trust that technology to turn off the car in front of me.

Jeff

They haven't perfected the technology just as yet but is it really so farfetched to see the possibilities?

It has been reported in several car journals that GM IS planning to include the Onstar system in ALL cars very soon. And, I used to work at a Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Caddy dealer and this WAS discussed as fact. With GM bleeding money for the last many years, it is to wonder where the cash for this system development is coming from?

Washington State HAS had legislation proposed that would mandate GPS devices in ALL cars to log their travels and charge road fees accordingly.

Also, the same thing HAS been proposed in England.....for the reduction of traffic jams, you know!

For now, the implementation of such schemes is not cost effective as most drivers would be forced to buy and install the equipment. Not likely, I'd agree.

But.....when a high percentage of cars on the road already HAVE that equipment installed as standard equipment, is it really SO far fetched to imagine the potentials? I don't think so.

Of course, my foil hat HAS started itching pretty badly with all the negative brain waves it is blocking so I'll leave this subject now.

But, just remember where you saw this when it happens in the future.

 

[grimjaw]

In time it will be mandatory on ALL vehicles sold in our country.

Does that include retrofitting older vehicles that weren't manufactured or sold with it when they were new? Talk about a rush for the used car lot. Also might not include some commercial equipment, such as dirt haulers.

jmm

 

[JMusic]

Didn't even think of that. I haven't been in one for 20 years. I'm used to the big Plymouths Fury's and the Real Impala's. Big Blocks and lots of weight. If what your in is front wheel drive I feel sorry for you guys.

I did participate in a stolen "Stone Dump Truck" once. It was an Ohio State Patrol chase down an interstate. The guy wouldn't stop. What was tried was to get in front and slow the vehicle down and the guy just pushed the cruiser off the road. After knocking off some more hubcaps (ours not his) we started shooting. Tires first then radiator. Bunch of rounds took miles for it to seize up. Bad news Bears for the guy when it did.
Jim

 

[Father Knows Best]

Once a high percentage of cars on the road have Onstar capability, the pursuing Officer has only to make a call....."please stop the car in front of me" and, with the help of GPS tracking, in a few seconds it can be done.

You don't understand how OnStar works. OnStar communicates via cellular telephone service. If you give OnStar the VIN of an OnStar-equipped vehicle, OnStar dials it up just like a cell phone. The vehicle must be within a cellular service area, and respond. If it does, the GPS in the vehicle can relay its coordinates back to OnStar, and OnStar can also do things like check ECU trouble codes, unlock doors, etc.

Without knowing the VIN or some other unique identifier (such as a license plate number linked to the VIN), OnStar has no way to communicate with the vehicle. Thus, police could conceivably use OnStar to shut down a vehicle, but only if they first identify the vehicle by VIN or license plate, and only if that identity is known to OnStar. Of course, anyone can easily defeat OnStar by disconnecting the antenna, which prevents OnStar from establishing a communications link with the vehicle.

Also, remember that many modern engines will run a LONG TIME without any coolant. The computer will switch off injectors so the cylinder pumps only air to cool itself and this scheme is cycled through the engine maintaining a safe operating temp. Sure, you are down on power but the engine will not overheat enough to stop.

That's about the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. What's your citation? There are a few engines on the market today with cylinder deactivation technology (Honda and Cadillac have it on top of the line models), but the technology is for fuel savings, not engine cooling. Even then, deactivating cylinders has no significant cooling effect. Modern internal combustion engines are all water cooled because they need to dissipate excess heat much more quickly than is possible with air cooling.

Don't believe me? Let's try draining the coolant from your engine and see what happens. I've got a week's pay that says that unless you're driving an old air cooled Beetle or Porsche, you'll seize the engine in no time.

 

[solareclipse]

don't forget that to actually damage the radiator you need to hit a pipe, cooling fins don't count so you still have 50/50 chance even with that.

cars can run oddly enough with a damaged cooling system. when i had a blown gasket it caused the water to leak out so i pretty much was driving it dry after 200 miles. hit the gas and the temp rose up. get it up to good speed though and the air kept it cool enough. idle caused it to go up and very light driving maintained it constant for a long time.

so let's just stick to the old approach that actually works and take the tires out. everything else is just too random to be useful.

 

[coylh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Whaling_harpoon.jpg

 

[RecoilRob]

[





That's about the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. What's your citation? There are a few engines on the market today with cylinder deactivation technology (Honda and Cadillac have it on top of the line models), but the technology is for fuel savings, not engine cooling. Even then, deactivating cylinders has no significant cooling effect. Modern internal combustion engines are all water cooled because they need to dissipate excess heat much more quickly than is possible with air cooling.

Don't believe me? Let's try draining the coolant from your engine and see what happens. I've got a week's pay that says that unless you're driving an old air cooled Beetle or Porsche, you'll seize the engine in no time.[/QUOTE]

What kind of income level are you making Father? I drive a 2004 SVT Ford Focus and I will gladly take your bet. It, and many other modern Fords and GM's that I am aware of, will switch off the injectors to save itself from overheating should it lose the coolant.

This is completely different than the variable displacement engines you are thinking of. I'll let you off the hook on the bet because this is THR after all!

And, the Onstar technology is being put in place. They don't have the ability RIGHT NOW to do what I fear, but a skyscraper is not built overnight and the standardization of this system is the foundation for the future....which dooms me to old cars because I will NOT have that technology and intrusion on my vehicle.

Also, when the time comes, the Big Brother System will be intergrated into the car in such a way that you cannot remove it and still operate the vehicle.

 

[Father Knows Best]

There's a difference between saying that a car's ECU will shut off the fuel injectors, or alter the fuel mixture or ignition timing (which they also do), in order to respond to potential overheating, and saying that the car will actually run for an extended distance without a functioning cooling system. If you are low on coolant, or have a partially blocked radiator, then those types of systems will let a modern vehicle "limp home" without permanent damage. They are not enough, however, to let the vehicle drive for any significant distance in the total absence of coolant circulation.

And I don't doubt that OnStar or something similar will be in every new vehicle before long. The technology is available and quite inexpensive. It's just a GPS (handheld ones cost as little as $100) and a cell phone, with a connection to the vehicle's ECU. With GM's scale and buying power, the total cost of the OnStar hardware is probably as little as a few bucks per vehicle.

The question is what are its capabilities. OnStar does not know at any given time where your car is. It finds out by dialing up your car's built-in cell phone, and asking the GPS to relay its coordinates back to OnStar. The police can't make that happen without telling OnStar which vehicle to call. For that, OnStar needs a VIN or OnStar account number. A bad guy can prevent OnStar from deactivating his vehicle, therefore, just by removing the license plate (or putting a stolen one on). A lot of them do that, already. Or you can defeat OnStar by doing any of scores of little things such as unplugging the cell antenna, or cutting the power supply to the OnStar communications module. Can those latter things be made more difficult? Sure. GM and "big brother" (if you're a member of the tin foil beanie club) can make all kinds of changes to the technology. They could start implanting OnStar units in our brains at birth, for that matter. That isn't happening yet, though, so I see no reason to panic about it. OnStar as it currently exists is not a significant threat.

 

[GregGry]

I have a video of a honda civic (late 80s early 90s model) that ran for more the 12 minutes at almost full throttle (if not full throttle) with 0 engine coolant. It was throwing sparks out of the exhaust for many minutes. It takes a lote more then 5 minutes for most eninges to sieze up from lack of coolant, which is why shooting a hole in the radiator isn't that effective.

 

[Father Knows Best]

I have a video of a honda civic (late 80s early 90s model) that ran for more the 12 minutes at almost full throttle (if not full throttle) with 0 engine coolant. It was throwing sparks out of the exhaust for many minutes. It takes a lote more then 5 minutes for most eninges to sieze up from lack of coolant, which is why shooting a hole in the radiator isn't that effective.

Stopping it in 12 minutes is better than not stopping it at all. I have yet to see anyone suggest a more reliable and quicker way of stopping a moving vehicle with a firearm.

 

[GregGry]

Stopping it in 12 minutes is better than not stopping it at all. I have yet to see anyone suggest a more reliable and quicker way of stopping a moving vehicle with a firearm.

I don't know, having a car that will run at full throttle for 12+ minutes, and retain full ability to manuver around is a heck of a lot better then have 2 or 3 tires blown out, and not being able to turn hardly at all. I have done a chase simulation where I ran over a stop strip, and tried to drive around a course. I want to tell you, you can't turn, you slide. It would be easier to ram a tireless car off the road, then it would a car that has full driving capabilities. Shooting out the tires with a shotgun or similar would be more efficent the shooting the radiator. Shooting tires would allow you to be behind or next to the car, being infront is the only way you could shoot the radiator, which is a spot you wouldn't be at in a chase.

 

[Father Knows Best]

We don't disagree. My initial point was that it is almost impossible to stop a high speed chase with a firearm. I said that the most likely outcome of shooting a bunch of rounds into the engine compartment would be the eventual seizing of the engine due to loss of coolant. I didn't say it would be quick, or a good idea. I said it more to explain why police DON'T try to stop chases with firearms.

Shooting out the tires is another bad idea. They are very hard to hit on a moving vehicle. If you miss, there is a high likelihood of ricochets, and you usually have to be concerned about bystanders. Even if you hit, you run the risk -- as you point out -- that the driver will lose control. That's typically bad. The ideal stop of a chase is to disable the vehicles engine but leave the driver with brakes and steering, because that way he will generally come to a stop without hitting innocent bystanders. If you shoot out his tires, he may well continue to try and run (we've all seen it on T.V.), but the lack of brakes and effective steering will cause him to collide with something. If that something is a bystander, you have a bad result.

The bottom line is that the best thing to do in most high speed chases is NOT to shoot at the vehicle (or the driver). A car is a heck of a powerful weapon -- 4,000+ pounds of steel and glass moving at 60-100 mph carries a LOT of energy and can do a LOT of damage. The way to stop it is to wait until the chase gets to an area without immediate danger to bystanders (rural road, for example) and then either use standard techniques to force a spin or use a pre-positioned stop strip to blow out his tires in an area where he is unlikely to lose control suddenly and strike a bystander.

 

[GregGry]

We don't disagree. My initial point was that it is almost impossible to stop a high speed chase with a firearm. I said that the most likely outcome of shooting a bunch of rounds into the engine compartment would be the eventual seizing of the engine due to loss of coolant. I didn't say it would be quick, or a good idea. I said it more to explain why police DON'T try to stop chases with firearms.

Shooting out the tires is another bad idea. They are very hard to hit on a moving vehicle. If you miss, there is a high likelihood of ricochets, and you usually have to be concerned about bystanders. Even if you hit, you run the risk -- as you point out -- that the driver will lose control. That's typically bad. The ideal stop of a chase is to disable the vehicles engine but leave the driver with brakes and steering, because that way he will generally come to a stop without hitting innocent bystanders. If you shoot out his tires, he may well continue to try and run (we've all seen it on T.V.), but the lack of brakes and effective steering will cause him to collide with something. If that something is a bystander, you have a bad result.

The bottom line is that the best thing to do in most high speed chases is NOT to shoot at the vehicle (or the driver). A car is a heck of a powerful weapon -- 4,000+ pounds of steel and glass moving at 60-100 mph carries a LOT of energy and can do a LOT of damage. The way to stop it is to wait until the chase gets to an area without immediate danger to bystanders (rural road, for example) and then either use standard techniques to force a spin or use a pre-positioned stop strip to blow out his tires in an area where he is unlikely to lose control suddenly and strike a bystander.

Yep your right

 

[Father Knows Best]

LAPD has air-powered GPS "dart"

The LA Times has an article today on new GPS tracking technology intended to make high speed chases unnecessary. It also notes that they are considering "using technology that would disable a vehicle's electronics."

LAPD Pursues High-Tech End to High-Speed Chases
By Richard Winton, Times Staff Writer

Question: "Chief, you said Los Angeles is the car chase capital of the world. What makes it that way?"

Answer: "There are a lot of nuts here."

With that street-cop psychology, Chief William J. Bratton unveiled Thursday a new and decidedly strange weapon in the LAPD's effort to halt high-speed pursuits.

It is an air-propelled miniature dart equipped with a global positioning device. Once fired from a patrol car, it sticks to a fleeing motorist's vehicle and emits a radio signal to police.

Bratton hailed the dart as "the big new idea" and said that if the pilot program was successful, Los Angeles' seemingly daily TV fix of police chases could be a thing of the past.

"Instead of us pushing them doing 70 or 80 miles an hour … this device allows us not to have to pursue after the car," Bratton said. "It allows us to start vectoring where the car is. Even if they bail out of the car, we'll have pretty much instantaneously information where they are."

U.S. Department of Justice officials, Bratton said, suggested that the StarChase system, the brainchild of a Virginia company, be tested in Los Angeles. A small number of patrol cars will be equipped with the compressed air launchers, which fire the miniature GPS receiver in a sticky compound resembling a golf ball, for four to six months as a trial.

There were more than 600 pursuits in Los Angeles and more than 100,000 nationwide last year. Critics have long questioned the wisdom of police pursuits because they can endanger bystanders and officers.

Los Angeles' love-hate relationship with police chases goes back at least to O.J. Simpson's slow-speed pursuit across Southern California freeways in 1994.

LAPD chases — as well as pursuits by other agencies — often end violently. Last year, an LAPD officer fatally shot a 13-year-old boy, who was driving a stolen car, at the end of a pursuit. This week, a pursuit in Chino ended with a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy firing at the passenger of the car in a controversial incident caught on videotape.

With such things as license-plate reading SMART police cars and facial-recognition cameras, the LAPD is trying to become a testing ground for innovative police technology, Bratton said.

The LAPD may even consider using technology that would disable a vehicle's electronics.