Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
Really?
The press explain the ease with which vehicles can be taken, vehicle manufactruers are being ´named & shamed´, keyless tech’ is to blame, car-makers are urged to ‘sort out their failures’.
Think again.
Criticizing vehicle manufacturers for thefts is easy, and appears reasonable but is a distraction. The conduct benefits only the thieves.
Vehicle theft was an obvious problem in 2019. A Vehicle Crime Taskforce (VCT) squad was formed and identified some issues (and ‘actions’).
- What is it about vehicle security that gets us all riled up?
- What causes car makers to be singled out for criticism?
- How have manufacturers failed us and not done enough?
- What is enough? How much more security do we expect manufacturers to add to a vehicle, what more do we want?
Make something idiot-proof and someone invents a better idiot. A somewhat trite reference, so let me turn to Charles Darwin; “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
Add better security, thieves evolve their conduct to overcome the nuisance. Criminals react rapidly, are adept. By comparison, the VCT did what? Never met again! As for their ‘actions’, except for highlighting the makes & models favoured by criminals, these seemingly similarly evaporated; thefts increased.
How soon we forget! By the year 2000, vehicle manufacturers were the heroes. The incidence of vehicle theft in the UK had about halved since the dizzy figures of the 1990’s that saw over half-a-million taken each year – theft figures can be viewed here.
Yet now, the security manufacturers applied, that gave rise to the substantial reduction, is being blamed for the resurgence of the crime.
Consider the following:
- Manufacturers designed out the majority of vehicle thieves
- Insurers and Vehicle Provenance Companies (VPC) hampered and deterred criminal activity
- Professional, organised vehicle thieves were not adversely affected by developments
- Vehicle theft ‘specialists’ may have benefitted from plummeting theft records.
- ‘Security bypass’ or ‘keyless theft’ activity is:
- cited casually
- unrecorded
- an excuse
- on the decease(?) – who would know?
- a distraction
- Vehicle theft is a low priority, and receives little attention
- Vehicle values are up, vehicle thefts are up, recoveries are down and of those vehicles found, more are in pieces, total losses.
Whilst supportive of improvements in vehicle security, it is a deterrent. But not every criminal is easily discouraged when presented a high value mobile target, left in the open.
Who can/will prevent vehicle thieves from acquiring the one item that overcomes the array of sophisticated security applied to a modern vehicle – the KEY?
Is it believed this falls to manufacturers and if not, who has failed us?
The narrative that positions vehicle manufacturers as pivotal in vehicle theft prevention is simplistic and misleading. Effective theft mitigation requires a collective approach that addresses technological, systemic, and human factors. Redirecting the discourse towards comprehensive solutions rather than targeted blame may foster more resilient and adaptive responses to the ongoing challenge of vehicle theft.
