Insane to me that so many people believe this...
This runs directly contrary to my lived experience here, so unless you can provide evidence it sure seems like you're just stereotyping an entire nation to engage in ideological warfare.
It just needs to be a sufficient number of politicians understanding that their donors and prospective donors find specific regulation of their industry overbearing.
I was planning to upgrade it
I might not...
How big of a difference was the actual safety of the Japanese cars? Are the corrected numbers poor, or still pretty good?
Within my lifetime we've gone from leaving the backdoor unlocked at night and leaving the car keys on the seat (or in the ignition) from being the normal practice to being unthinkable.
You're focusing on the wrong govt policies.
Then the local powerplant shut down, and the manufacturing associated with it left as well. The largest employer in the area besides those two moved operations to China. Then methamphetamine became popular and then heroin, too.
Now you can't leave anything unlocked or outside.
Yeah, because you guys had a warped perception of crime.
Virtually all crime now is significantly lower than it was just 20 years ago. You might not believe that, but it's true!
What's happening here is people's perceptions are being warped, almost certainly due to political propaganda. But the numbers don't lie, just take a look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Now there is genuine crime. Drugs and murder.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that your argument doesn't apply on the local scale. Using macro data for micro experience is a bad idea.
This is also the reason that argument falls flat in a lot of places.
A lot harder to find one now.
I’m trying to think of the point this changed, and I can’t, but I would guess around 2008-2010 or so.
Social problems and regressions cannot be resolved with ever more esoteric technological or draconian political solutions.
But you are right that there are many (older models) that use ciphers with know quick exploits: TI's DTS40/DTS80 (40/80bit, proprietary cipher, in many cases terrible entropy), models from Toyota, HKMC, Tesla. About 6s to crack in many cases.
NXP's HTAG2 - most commonly used one in the '00s - 48bit proprietary cipher, a lot less exploited in the wild than the TI's disastrous two variants.
Keep in mind any need for expensive equipment is already a deterrent for many.
One of my old neighbors had their same car stolen like 2-3 times, always ditched and found after some number of days missing.
I can think of nothing more American than suing car manufactures because they're too easy to steal. The US is truly screwed.
As much as some narrative wants us to think, we don't need to be forced to live in effectively the same conditions as a maximum-security prison in order to have no crime.
Cars (and other things) being easy to steal isn't the problem.
"A nationwide epidemic of Kia thefts" seems to be a natural consequence of decreased security. However, that carjacking in Milwaukee and Chicago specifically would follow from a nationwide omission of interlocks is not obvious as the vehicles are easily stolen without the need for personal confrontation. What is the connection of Kia interlocks to carjacking in Milwaukee and Chicago?
I think parent-poster means that the easily-stolen cars are being used as tools of carjacking, rather than the targets of it. In particular, carjacking that occurs by somehow provoking a victim to stop on the highway shoulder, a location where attackers can't exactly arrive by foot or bus or bike. That way they don't involve a vehicle that might be observed and traced back to them.
An alternate explanation is that they meant to write something like "theft" and accidentally put down "carjacking" instead.
Part of what makes it unintuitive is the specificity:
* Why Milwaukee and Chicago instead of everywhere?
* Why carjacking and not a general increase in crimes that could be facilitated by an unassociated car (bank robbery, toll violations, etc)?For whatever reason, it became A Thing here more than a year before it went national. Car thefts in Milwaukee more than doubled (entirely due to a stupidly large increase in Kia/Hyundai thefts) and we got a reputation for Kia thefts before it became a national issue
Random presentation of car theft stats comparing Chicago to a handful of others. We hear a lot about Chicago because many have a vested interest in deflecting discussions about crime. When was the last time you heard about the insane motor vehicle theft rate of Dallas? https://public.tableau.com/shared/W2KZH4JC7?:display_count=y...
As the sibling points out: it's a broader issue than just carjackings --- but the carjackings themselves were novel, scared the shit out of people in a way that stochastic-seeming strong arm robberies don't. The headline here is: it was a gravely negligent thing for Kia to have done; I hope they lose their shirts.
It wasn't just in those cities, it was nationwide. The poster was using those cities as examples because they are familiar to him.
Cars are hard to fence and if you have a stolen car there's other crimes you can commit that have similar upsides and lower sentences/risks. For example ATMs never run over your buddies or shoot back at you.
It's a pretty good argument for the regulation, since everyone else is already doing it just make it the standard.
I find it very easy to hold the governments, people, and companies as all culpable in the own way.
Maybe we’ll see a return of The Club™
For a Toyota Sienna? Which option package on that thing did you get? That's wild!
But again, I totally agree with you about the weirdness of people going full military compounds in residential areas.
A large part of the crime wave stems from the policies these cities implemented. Many times from the same leaders who are suing Kia now.
For instance, a friend got their car stolen in D.C. After they caught the guy, they let him go with no consequences, because they said he was under 25 and it was the first time they caught him. D.C. recently put a convicted murderer on the sentencing commission who believes that this kind of "it's not really their fault if they're under 25" thinking should be extended to murders as well.
Local politicians even told us there wasn't a crime wave, and that it was just a fake narrative. Then when that stopped working, they started pointing fingers at everyone else they could.
Anything political doesn't have to be only this reason or only that reason. "Both" is an option too.
- Kia fucked up, to make more $
- Some cities have ineffective enforcementTo be specific, I don't think the cities are suing over the car thefts. If I understand correctly, they're suing because the availability of easily hacked Kia cars enabled a wave of other crimes, because the criminals knew they had easy access to a getaway vehicle that couldn't be traced back to them.
Both Kia and the thieves can be in the wrong. Trying to break it down to one cause is never going to work.
Some car will always be the easiest to steal. People should always take reasonable precautions. But crime is still crime; if someone leaves their car running with the door unlocked as they run into the store and it gets stolen - they made a mistake but the criminal did a crime.
Lots of people get sued for lots of things. Nowhere does it say that suits can succeed only if the defendant is the sole cause of the problem. See: Takata air bags. Huge liability, but in any given incident it wouldn’t be a problem unless someone else caused an accident. Yet Takata does not get to say “or defective product wouldn’t have been a problem if Mr. Doofus hadn’t rear-ended you”
Binary is great for computers, less good in legal thinking.
Here, because the entire purpose of car immobilizers is theft protection, the thief is foreseeable and his crime does not supersede.
I’m a little troubled by your use of the word “asinine” in this context.
I’d be willing to guess you won’t use this word salad when describing sexual crimes.
If by "ripped out," you mean depressing a tab and then pulling it out.
No, but this statement implied Kia wasn't at fault because someone else committed the crime...
> I’ll take victim blaming for $200, Alex. Breaking into a house is easy as a rock through the window but we don’t sue homebuilders for not putting in stronger glass.
So sure, that was the first use of "only cause"; in the same way that "there was 1 light" and "there weren't multiple lights" aren't the same words; but they contain the same information.
I live in a not great part of what's arguably the bluest state in the nation (which is to say this isn't some dumb red state "tough on crime" thing) and I can't imagine someone being able to go around checking windows or car doors for very long without a free ride in a cop car. Windows here are unlatched from May to September. I bet a lot of those houses have Kias in the driveway that they've had no theft problems with as we only have about a dozen car thefts per year here.
Ford Superduties over a huge year range can be stolen much the same way (you also have to punch out a lock before taking a screwdriver to the column) until very recently as PATS was not standard on the higher GVW stuff but those are expensive trucks so shitting on them doesn't scratch the same "validate my $50k purchase of something else" itch that crapping on Kia does.
That being said, how many people buying Kias _knew_ the problem existed? You can't make an educated choice if the information isn't really available to be educated about.
WHAT?
I don’t have my wallet on a chain, do I have some responsibility if I get pickpocketed?
These criminals are breaking the law, it is ENTIRELY their fault. Any other interpretation has way, way too many logic holes and strange consequences that says it’s our fault when a criminal willingly breaks the law.
If your car gets stolen, that's your problem.
If suddenly a massive number of cars are stolen, that's the government's problem. (As now police forces have to deal with criminals trivially obtaining getaway cars)
So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued for the cost of the additional police resources required.
I have no idea why you jump to that conclusion.
The problem is clearly the person breaking the law.
But anyway, going with what you said...
> So it seems reasonable that the manufacturer in question should be sued
Wait, if it's the government's problem, then THEY should be sued for not requiring manufacturers to have these anti-theft devices (as the Canadian government does). The auto manufacturer is building cars precisely as the US government mandated them to.
It seems like you're trying to bend logic to blame anyone and everyone other than the people who are breaking the law.
What I'm talking about is how companies should bear liability for the social consequences of their choices.
Is there a more credible source?
What if the sentenced person is actually innocent? No amount of apologies or recompensation will bring that person back.
But at least the question "how is that acceptable?" is in fact a question of a moral nature. It's unacceptable, but it is unacceptable because it is immoral.
While I don't like the death penalty I don't think it's that different from a very long sentence. I don't think it makes sense to say that any punishment needs an absolutely perfect error rate.
Advocacy in favor of the death penalty is never about "death penalty for murderers/rapists" but "death penalty for people convicted of being murderers/rapists". Practice has shown there's a big difference
That's a pretty big step, and to me it requires a lot of benefits to justify.
It seems to me like taking care of business before that happens is a more beneficial thing.
One extreme is the death sentence, sure.
But on the other end it feels as if there are constant stories of career criminals who just do thing after thing after thing. It's not like someone just accidentally gets caught up in multiple assaults/robberies/break-ins etc. At some point you have to just think, okay, there's no rehabilitating this guy, how do we minimise the damage to society.
Locking 1,000 people up for a decade costs ~1 billion dollars. So even slightly more aggressive policies get expensive fast, and a surprising number of people “age out” of these kinds of crimes. It’s not clear if it’s hormones or what but you’ll see people with extensive rap sheets who end up as productive members of society in their 30’s or 40’s and beyond.
A person that goes about assaulting people is a significant drain on society. It's not even just monetary, it ruins trust, it ruins the relations between the people who aren't antisocial. It also has the moral hazard effect of increasing the number of others that see that this behaviour ultimately goes unpunished.
As far as I'm concerned, there are very few legitimate reasons to raise taxes, but police and prisons are one of them, they are not problems that individuals can solve in the private sector.
In a way it does, because it ruins trust as the participants treat your presence on the road like an inconvenience.
Aren’t we all a bit guilty of that? Maybe not all the time - when I see an ambulance whizz past or a fire truck, I’m appreciative of their efforts.
But everyone else? You’re just in the way ultimately. There isn’t much pleasure to be derived in waiting around for someone to have their fair turn at the intersection or whatever.
Obviously as a rational human I’m quite capable of suppressing such thoughts and generally abide by the traffic laws, but the point still stands.
This is a purely political decision, not an inherent cost of jailing.
Your number comes down to $100k per person per year. That’s just insane. Many families earn less than that (post-tax)!
And obviously jail is supposed to be cheaper than non-jail life in the first place, because you’re not paying for luxury, just food, (cheap) rent and security.
That's not nearly as bad as I was expecting considering that for every 1-2 prisoners there's a ~$100k employee.
Low key jobs program at the expense of taxpayers IMO.
Or consider institution GED classes. You might say, those can easily go on the chopping block to save some money. But then you end up with inmates who are released without a high school diploma and, lacking educational opportunities, are more likely to return to crime. Then they go back into the prison system where they use more state resources than if they had just been given education in the first place. It's easy to imagine scenarios in which programs like that are worthwhile in the long term purely for fiscal reasons even if you care 0% about the welfare of criminals themselves.
On the contrary, Canada's rate of stolen cars is only 10% less than the US despite having very few port cities. <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy79dq2n093o>
If it did, that would point to a US and Canada crime trend correlation. If not, then you can't just say that the one static variable, city/county level policy and the independent variable, immobilizers, are the only factors.
You have different criminal populations, societal values, amounts of government aid, rehabilitation programs, etc that all play into the analysis.
This couldn't be the same state where they tried to just bribe a foreign company known for exploitative labor practices to set up a facility there could it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_Valley_Science_and_Tec....
Edit: ah! I think you meant engine immobilizer
Requiring a breath or a specific key signal are both interlocks.