h a l f b a k e r yResident parking only.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When someone says, "Get out of the car", you push a button behind the steering wheel that releases the energy of a heavy metal bar (about 2 feet long) that swings from the underside of the car toward the front of the car. The bar would swing parallel to the ground, and should not permanently injure the
criminal. The speed would have to be pretty great, and the length of the bar would have to be far enough out as to knock anyone down standing next to the car. The element of surprise is the best part.
Anti-carjacking devices
http://www.bizarsit...eld%20ophalers.html
Tell me it wouldn't deter YOU. [eyeguy, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
[link]
|
| |
I don't know. Trip someone who has a gun pointed toward me. Or perhaps worse, just bang them in the shin. Nope, I don't like it. |
|
| |
I've heard in some dodgy urban areas in seeth afreekah there are all kinds of home brew car defenses being tried by people...airbags that deploy from the headlining to knock the thief out, to flame throwers under the car... |
|
| |
There is a south african one almost identical to this, but with a big sword. |
|
| |
!clang! - stupid parking meter |
|
| |
As bungston notes, and in fact widely covered by the press, this is [marked–for–deletion] Widely Baked in South Africa, where it *is* aimed to do permanent damage to the criminal. (Other options include flame throwers.) |
|
| |
I had never heard of this and hence disagree that it's widely known. Find some links, will you? |
|
| |
So, [scout], do you mean that the majority of people who buy guns end up hurting themselves or a non-threatening person with those guns? |
|
| |
I read the sentence as saying that if someone gets hurt, that person is more often an innocent than a criminal. That could be true. |
|
| |
(But, oddly enough, that doesn't mean that defense is a worse option than non-defense! If 20 fewer people get car-jacked and 6 people get attacked by the device, 2 of whom were criminals, then the situation with device still hurt 14 fewer people than without, assuming the hurt by carjacking is equivalent to the hurt by the device.) |
|
| |
Ah, yes, that's probably a more fair interpretation. |
|
| |
I've provided a link for a far more effective anti-carjacking device. It's pro-active as opposed to re-active. |
|
| |
and devices like this may save your life and your car, but are likely to see you end up in front of a judge on assault charges. |
|
| |
[DrCurry]: Unless you can cite an unobscure example of the proposed mechanism under discussion in this idea, please remove the MFD as I haven't any intention of deleting the idea. |
|
| |
I like it, but the liabilities will be bad for
your insurance. Better to get full
coverage and let them pay for it! Why
not get a lowjack or whatnot? Good at
protecting your car, less likely to earn
you a lawsuit from the skating waitress
at the drive-in diner. |
|
| |
An effective anti-carjacking device for south africa would involve not putting 95% of the population in tarpaper shacks without water or sanitation or food and then driving through them in your rolls royce limousine. |
|
| |