Personally, I hate OnStar because it seems to make a regular, in-dash touch screen nav unavailable on some pretty hot cars like the Camaro.

The rest of the arguments against OnStar and government encroachment and mind control--I think it's a bunch of tinfoil hat bull****.

 

that and the ugly antennae

 

There are a lot of vehicle you can have OnStar and in-dash Nav systems... Corvette, most, if not all Cadillacs, etc...

The lack of (presumably quite profitable) in-dash nav units throughout the GM lineup is somewhat mind boggling to me.

 

It would need to be in something I'd actually buy--which is pretty much limited to a 5th Gen Camaro or a 2007+ Tahoe. There's no in-dash Nav in the Camaro, and for $50k to get a Tahoe, at that point I'm looking at a nicer vehicle that probably comes with one anyway.

Absolutely mind-boggling is right.

 

I would think long and hard before disconnecting Onstar; at least the first year as it is included at no further cost to you. If you do disconnect it you better hope your vehicle isn't stolen, and damaged as there would be a good probability your insurance company won't cover the loss/damage. Sure the camaro has safety features to prevent the average car thief (teenager joyriding) from stealing your car; however those of us with DD manuals who live in northern climates that have to warm up our vehicles during the winter, will be vulnerable.

I was a P.I. for a year and a half, and I did enough work for insurance companies to know that they are in the business to make money. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. The 2010 camaro is designed for law enforcement to not only track a stolen auto with the assistance of Onstar, but they can have Onstar safely stop the stolen vehicle, and help prevent accidents through dangerous high speed chases.

If your unlucky enough to have your vehicle stolen, and damaged extensively then expect your claim to be denied, if your insurance company finds that you tampered with Onstar.

 

You know for the Corvette at least you can program it to not lock when the key fob is left in the car and it honks 3 times to let you know after you close the door.

 

oh for goodness' sake, if the onstar device was not installed in the car, sensors or not, nothing gets reported. the whole point is that the onstar device is the point of communication between you and the people in the onstar offices, and in turn the police.

chop off the finger in the kid, or better yet, all, and he won't be poking you with the finger.

capisci?

 

Could I get some of those rose-coloured glasses too?

Do you even review, much less study, the history of laws passed in your country? And how many unpopular laws have been repelled?

 

Actually, I was wondering why the nav systems were taking off so slowly with GM. Another manufacturer that was lagging behind was Audi, which used a tiny screen that showed only red LEDs in the middle of the speedometer cluster to show you the arrow whether to go straight or turn left or right when everyone else (Japanese automakers specifically) have been using large color LCD screen in the center console for years.

 

You really have to inform your insurance company whether you have the device or not. They cannot NOT insure you if you don't have OnStar. And as they know, OnStar has no impact on professional theft. It will, however, deter joyriding and petty thieves.

I probably would not disable OnStar for the duration of the subscription (1 year?). But when the subscription does end, I would disable as it serves no benefit to me.

 

Boy, I sure would hate to be one of the millions and millions of car owners who don't have OnStar equipped vehicles. Looks like none of them will be insured against loss or damage.

 

I'm just going to skip all the crap and take a running leap off the skyscraper in front of us all...

Every one of you that posted and even argues in favor of OnStar in this thread probably needs to go sign-up/line-up for your personal ID chips to be inserted into your body... you know, the ones that are GPS-capable, and store any data that can be digitally generated... your pulse, your bloodpressure, your exact location, your velocity (if you are moving), your name, your ID#, your medical records, your criminal record, your toxicology, your blood alcohol content, and anything else you can imagine - including your conversation and your electronic transactions.

YOU do not turn it on or off. YOU do not take it out.

You are being conditioned to accept such life-monitoring technology one little step at a time. All under the disguise of "it's in your best interest" or "we're doing it for your benefit". The 1995 Stallone movie "Judge Dredd" sticks in my mind where he is thawed from a cryogenic state into a future setting, and the first thing from his mouth is a profanity, to which a computerized voice announces "his account has been charged ### dollars for use of profanity". Everything he does, says, and goes there is a voice telling him he is "unautorized, charged with, or violating" something. It's funny in the movie, but it is scary as he11 if you really sit and think about it seriously.

If life on my planet or in my country boils down to me becoming a carbon-based "robot" that is monitored by some computer bank for every little anomaly that I encounter... I'll exterminate myself. OnStar is just another stepping stone in that direction IMO.

I want a spontaneous life, uncontrolled and unwatched by anyone - the way it was MEANT to be. Maybe I want to be a little mischievious for a minute - if nobody is harmed or no foul given, what's the problem? If I want to do donuts in my yard or driveway, I don't want to have to explain myself to the law or some operator in order to do it (or after it's done). My car, my yard, my gas, my problem.

The best way to prevent a large tree from obscuring your view is not to plant the seed there.

ONE LAST THING about OnStar...
The auto-notification system in case of airbag deployment is marginally acceptable in my opinion, but should be further regulated. Everything else in the system is BUNK IMO.
The WORST argument (and the one I hear the most too BTW) is this "locked my keys in my car" excuse.
OK, so you locked your keys in the car. DO YOU HAVE YOUR CELL PHONE, or is it in there too? Uh-oh! If you DO have your cell, do you know the number to OnStar?
Well, guess what? If you had Ford's keyless entry system on the car, you could simply touch the keypad 5 times and unlock THAT door, hit the 3/4 button and unlock ALL the doors/hatches, or hit the 7/8 and 9/0 buttons and re-lock them all so you could do it again if you like. I can unlock my Ford doors in FEWER button strikes than you can even call OnStar, and I'll be driving away by the time the OnStar operator has your ID number from you (oh yeah, have that memorized too). Don't mean this to sound like a Ford commercial either - but I have been using their keyless system since 1995 and I am familiar with it. It is a better solution to "opening a locked door" than OnStar, it's there on the vehicle whether you pay for a subscription or not, and it costs MUCH less to boot.

My point is that there are often many ways to overcome obsticles.
Technology like OnStar should not be taken lightly.

Food for thought mixed with my .02 ... Everyone have a great weekend!

 

I'll give you one without even looking it up... prohibition.

 

That was Demolition Man Proud.

 

Shock6906; you're kidding right? Obviously the insurance companies are going to cover vehicles that are not equipped with Onstar. However the 2010 Camaro is I believe the first vehicle equipped with the ability of Onstar stopping the STOLEN vehicle once the police are in position to visually confirm it is safe. Now put yourself in the shoes of the insurance company when they find someone disconnected this safety/anti theft feature during the first free year, and the vehicle was stolen and written off. Wouldn't you fight to void the insurance?

By the way the insurance companies should give us a discount on our insurance rates as a result of this. How is this a bad feature to a owner of a $25,000 plus vehicle.

Proudpony; I respect your opinion, and If you feel that strongly against Onstar I wouldn't purchase a new GM vehicle. I wouldn't carry a credit card or cellphone for that matter then either.

I'm in Law Enforcement so you can say I'm biased, but I believe Onstar is a valuable safety, and anti theft feature. I intend to keep it for the duration of my owning the Camaro, and I am not going to drive it daily.

Someone said earlier that Law Enforcement would need a warrant to access Onstar's GPS tracking information, and they are 100% correct. Some of you think Big Brother has nothing better to do than track your movements; please get serious. I'm sure law enforcement in the States are as short of resources as we are in Canada. We don't have the time to monitor everyone's movements. Furthermore no honest law enforcement officer is going to jeopordize his/her job to illegally monitor someones movements. If they do they will be fired and prosecuted.

Onstar is not going to potentially lose their business by assisting law enforcement in illegally tracking someone for the police. Can you imagine the class action civil suit in the US if they did.

There was a newspaper article I read awhile back; a couple driving a GM vehicle equipped with Onstar were missing; my memory is not as good as it once was, but I think it was in Canada. The vehicle's owner had not renewed Onstar. The family of the missing couple contacted Onstar, and they would not track the vehicle. The couple were eventually found in a remote area, and they were deceased. I think Onstar was going to review their policy on this. I don't care how much you are against Onstar, if you were broken down in an isolated area in an Onstar equipped car, you would want Onstar to track the vehicle and pass it on to the authorities.

I worked for our federal police for many years including on drug sections. Don't think for a minute the police are not already installing tracking devices in vehicles covertly, under authority of a Warrant. Police in the United States are doing the same.

Let's compare for a minute law enforcement legally using the tracking ability of Onstar to another police tool such as DNA. Both when used legally can assist in proving beyond a reasonable doubt an accused is guilty of committing a SERIOUS criminal offence. Conversely they are often used to exonerate an innocent person.