Cars have been stolen since they were invented.
2 Likes
Well now we’ve found the direction of the problem. More law enforcement would be a step in the right direction.
Hyundai doesn’t need to do a darn thing. Since when is exploiting a weakness anything but the fault of the perpetrator?
2 Likes
How much more are you willing to pay in taxes to increase the size of the police force? It would have to be substantial. The thieves can get used to the schedule the police use to patrol an area and get to work once the cops pass by. Theft rings can include more lookouts with comm devices to keep the ones stealing the car from getting popped.
They do if they want to keep selling cars. I am not aware of any laws requiring Hyundai to fix the theft deterrent systems. They do it to sell cars in the future.
4 Likes
Willing to pay? None. My taxes are already too high, just like yours. And perhaps we don’t need to increase the police force, just stop reducing it and get it back where it needs to be.
https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-police-department-staffing-level-lowest-since-1991-recruiting-incentive-investment-spd-king-county-budget-mayor-bruce-harrell-alex-pederson-applicants-law-enforcement-understaffed-fbi-sara-nelson#:~:text=The%20SPD%20has%20lost%20hundreds,than%20being%20hired%20has%20continued.
Exactly as it should be. This is a problem to be sorted out by the marketplace. But now that government entities are suing Hyundai/Kia because “the cars are too easy to steal”, regulations are probably not far behind.
1 Like
And the solution is an electronic security system. The car markes get to charge more for $10 worth of electronics, and the dealers and lock smiths make more selling chip keys. The dealers make more since modules have to be programmed to the vehicle for security. Meanwhile the thieves roam the streets looking for the next easiest thing to steal, and snatching purses and taking car keys from the purses.
The Constitution charges the government to ‘promote the general welfare’. The government regulates all sorts of things about cars: fuel, emissions, brakes, tires, windshield wipers, seat belts, air bags… to make us all better off. If you count on law enforcement to deal with stolen cars, you ask the government to spend more money to catch and prosecute car thieves, much more expensive that installing immobilizers. The public can’t escape the cost.
We aren’t blaming the car. We’re pointing out alternatives that could prevent more theft at a savings greater than catching and prosecuting car thieves.
Ever had a car stolen? The cops did nothing but call me when they found it abandoned. I had to pay a wrecker $300 to get it back. I don’t want to pay the cops enough to catch and prosecute all thieves: that’d cost way more than dealing with the losses.
Hand them over. No auto is worth the damage someone could do to me. Person on person crime is rarer than stealing empty cars.
Do you think otherwise?
Don’t blame anyone. Blame is a red herring.
2 Likes
Nice picking out one word of the constitution without the rest of it that specified only those powers granted to the federal government. Reading the federalist papers helps to explain the reasoning of the founders and their fears for the future.
1 Like
Bad parenting is a major problem but how do we correct bad parenting (or no parents)? The results have proven to be deadly for pedestrians, bicyclists and other motorists.
Seems better security measures are the better solution to the problem.
2 Likes
I was quoting it because it suggests a principle that could inspire state governments. Would you be happier if it were a national law?
More support and education for neglected kids. A friend who taught school took every overtime opportunity he could get (I suspected he was trying to get away from his wife, but that’s another story.) He supervised the breakfast program before school and the study hall after school. He told me they were considering serving dinner. I asked him ‘What’s next? Adopting them?’. Then I realized it would probably be cheaper than trying to remedy their sociopathologies afterwards.
Which was the premise with which I started this thread.
Most thieves are opportunists, not desperadoes. Make it harder and there are fewer.
States must follow the national constitution and state constitutions may not conflict. The national was ratified by the states to be adopted or the states at that time. So the state would be aware of that language. Individuals may not but that was another fear of the founders.
The most likely reason why theft immobilizers were never mandated in the United States, is because every vehicle sold in this country has always included it beginning around the same time governments around the world began mandating it. So we just got the benefit of that…
KIA remains the one and only manufacturer to have ever have omitted the feature in the US.
The good news is that KIA have learned their lesson. The company has promised that going forward all vehicles in the US will now include immobilizers.
I wonder how much the immobilizer increases the car’s price?