Safety risks of remote engine immobilisers

I AM concerned with the State Government’s advocacy for remote engine immobilisers being fitted in vehicles as a means to reduce vehicle thefts.

Consideration of third party vehicle immobilisation has been covered in a CSI episode where an assailant hacked programs and used vehicles as a weapon to kill and maim innocent people.

Here’s a hypothetical giving cause to alarm. Should a person wake up about 3am and find their vehicle has been stolen, unbeknown to the victim the vehicle was stolen about 1am. The vehicle by 3am is being driven at 100km/ h on the highway well on the way to Cairns or Mackay.

An anxious victim then takes steps to remotely immobilise the vehicle, but the vehicle is travelling with a B- double or similar about 50m from its rear bumper.

Consider the vehicle is remotely immobilised and all four occupants of the stolen motor vehicle are killed instantly from being remotely stopped in front of the truck and the truck driver is now traumatised. Do we then have a legal question of liability?

I fully support equipping police vehicles with the ability to fry the electrics of a stolen vehicle or similar, providing the vehicle is isolated, not a traffic hazard and police are able to foresee consequence for the actions, so as to minimise possible casualties.