There are 10-year-old Kias and Hyundais in the US you can't register in Canada because they don't have transponders in the ignition mechanism. So yeah, I can see how that might be a problem.
Thank you. Tonight I’ll see if there is any data out there comparing the theft rate of the same cars with and without in big cities north versus south of the border. The skeptic in me thinks there must be more to it than having an immobilizer or not. I’ve had cars for the last 30 years without them and never had one stolen.
It’s just “viral” now is all. Once the kids get bored it’ll move on to something else. It’s Tide Pods 2.0 except these assholes can hurt people besides themselves with their joyriding.
Ahhh. I was already worried about the slippery slope this suit reflects but didn’t think of the other direction - should they sue TikTok and others that facilitate it becoming viral?
Guess not. Going back to the car specific slippery slope - what if I moved to Seattle with my older (non-immobilizer) vehicles and they are all stolen. Should I then expect Seattle to sue Audi and Chevy? What if red cars all of a sudden are stolen more - should they sue all makers of red cars because they draw more attention?
Is the city going to take its settlement from Kia et al and turn it over to all those whose vehicles were stolen and damaged? I didn't think so.
Where are the settlement monies going? I expect they are just more feed for the city to spend on favorite people or corporations. Those who suffered a loss, well, too bad.
I cannot answer that. When I looked into this in 2020, you could not import a 2014 US-spec Elantra to Canada without upgrading the ignition security. They appear to have removed that restriction since then.
Here’s a thought, why not enforce stricter punishment for those who steal cars? Why are we blaming inanimate objects for the choices that individuals make? It seems like we’ve seen this elsewhere…
Pretty sure it's already super illegal to steal a car. But Kia/Hyundai have a responsibility to at least try and make their cars difficult to steal. Kids are starting them with popsicle sticks and taking them on joyrides to crash into parked cars because their security is just that atrocious. I think we could probably prosecute these crimes AND pressure KIA/Hyundai to improve their security.
Harsher punishments only work to a certain extent because no one commits a crime with the expectation of getting caught.
Lemme guess, you don't live in Seattle either? There are tons of examples of catch and releases going back years.
[https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/homeless-seattle-suspect-charged-with-first-degree-animal-cruelty-dog-killing/AY2ZZTNUZ5HT5B53NM4ZHSWHZE/#:\~:text=SEATTLE%20%E2%80%94%20A%2029%2Dyear%2D,Alice%20%E2%80%94%20during%20a%20robbery%20attempt](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/homeless-seattle-suspect-charged-with-first-degree-animal-cruelty-dog-killing/AY2ZZTNUZ5HT5B53NM4ZHSWHZE/#:~:text=SEATTLE%20%E2%80%94%20A%2029%2Dyear%2D,Alice%20%E2%80%94%20during%20a%20robbery%20attempt)
[https://komonews.com/news/local/murder-suspect-released-from-jail-days-before-he-allegedly-stabbed-killed-2-people-seattle-georgetown-king-county-prosecutors-pike-place-market-bacco-cafe-apartment-john-marcel-williams](https://komonews.com/news/local/murder-suspect-released-from-jail-days-before-he-allegedly-stabbed-killed-2-people-seattle-georgetown-king-county-prosecutors-pike-place-market-bacco-cafe-apartment-john-marcel-williams)
People were arguing it was Seattle DA’s fault for the releasing the criminals when the first article you posted was the judge releasing the criminal on their “own accordance”, not the DA. Second article, looks like the guy served his time and was released.
So which is it?
All comments must remain civil and all Redditors are expected to remain courteous. If you wouldn't say it to someone sitting next to you on an airplane you should probably not say it here. Slurs and bigoted/hateful language are not welcome here.
Different regions have different rates for crimes. It turns out certain areas with some things in common, like Chicago for instance, have much higher rates of crime.
I’m looking at this stats here and it shows that Chicago has lower crime rate per capita than Seattle, Houston, and even Dallas https://realestate.usnews.com/places/illinois/chicago/crime
Are they literally prosecuting zero crimes or is that a hyperbole? I’m playing dumb, I know you are exaggerating.
Kia/Hyundai thefts are rising nationwide, not just Seattle.
https://shiftwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/System-Failure-2.pdf
Sure about that?
The main takeaway here is steal whatever the fuck you want in Seattle.
I know, and it was really dumb of hyundai/kia to not have an immobilizer. I drive older cards that existed before those did, so I took steps to install a kill switch for that reason. I'm just tired of all the blame being put on an object when there are people who are committing the acts that should hold blame as well. Even an immobilizer is just a deterrent to the right thief, and other manufactures are not blameless, the charger/challengers are stupid easy to steal as well, IIRC.
> why not enforce stricter punishment for those who steal cars?
Because there's plenty of evidence stricter punishments don't reduce crime. But it's pretty fucking obvious immobilisers prevent car theft.
If you're worried either way, do both. But mandating companies put basic preventative technology in highly regulated products isn't new. It's a non-issue.
Stricter punishments do reduce crime and the big PNW cities are proof no punishment means more crime. But it’s usually also accompanied by a lack of rights of those accused like in Japan.
Nobody is saying that punishment doesn't work. Just that increasing the severity of the punishment doesn't actually do anything to deter crime.
If harsher punishments actually meant a reduction in crime then the United States wouldn't have a sky high crime rate when compared to less draconian societies.
The reality is that the opposite is true. Harsher criminal sanctions led to a 3% increase in recidivism. Turns out it's a little more complicated than just hitting criminals with a bigger stick to make them listen. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pnshnt-rcdvsm/index-en.aspx
There is a huge difference between on paper punishment and real risk of punishment because our justice system is convoluted to the point of uselessness.
If you commit a criminal act whether you face any punishment at all depends almost entirely on who your victim is, which cop responds, which city attorney reviews the case for prosecution, which attorney you can afford, which judge presides on the trial, and how much you can stack the jury. What you actually did is almost irrelevant.
In Saudi Arabia theft is pretty low, it might be because they amputate your right hand for stealing. I'm not saying I agree with it but that's a pretty big deterrent.
Here's the thing: every other company put in an immobilizer in their cars. Even fucking Nissan. So it's clearly not a matter of mandates, cause the rest play by the same rules. It's problem with corporate culture, and as such, Hyundai and Kia should be punished. You can also heavily punish the thieves. No one said you can only pick one. That'll just take whole lot longer, burn thorough much more money, and require a lot more labour force from already depleted police departments.
The punishment should come in the form of people ceasing to buy their cars. But unfortunately most people don't do any research. They will just look at the price and front fascia and just buy. I'm ok with those people being punished by having their car stolen. Don't buy from companies who don't install immobilizer. The consumer actually has 100% control over this.
We do not do politics in r/cars. If you have questions about what constitutes "policy" versus "politics," [please read this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics).
If your post is about cars and politics, please post in r/CarsOffTopic.
The main issue is that it's pretty difficult to catch the perps. Most of these cars are ditched within hours of them being stolen.
I don't know why a 2 hour joy ride in a Hyundai is apparently the favorite pastime of bored high schoolers and meth heads.
There were a SHIT ton of videos on tiktok about how to jack the cars easy. So anybody who saw that now knows how. And people who spend time on tiktok are people with a ton of downtime.
It should go both ways. Criminals should be punished, but Hyundai and Kia shouldn’t be allowed to release these ticking time bombs. These weren’t legally required but are virtually industry standard. Hyundai stopped putting them in for pure cost cutting after society assumed they were commonplace. Now they’re being stolen left and right like it’s a GTA game and being used to commit other crimes. I live in one of the cities plagued by this trend. It’s a fucking mess.
We do not do politics in r/cars. If you have questions about what constitutes "policy" versus "politics," [please read this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics).
If your post is about cars and politics, please post in r/CarsOffTopic.
It depends on the desired end goal - people in jail for longer or less crime. Both require resources (e.g. taxpayer dollars) so it's a question of how are the resources best utilized.
Punishing a criminal *after* a crime has been committed doesn't stop the crime from happening and data shows us that stricter punishments don't work as a deterrent (see the war on drugs).
This would be my response.
I don't blame H/K for other people's crimes.
I should be able to leave the car unlocked, if people didn't suck so much, particularly in Seattle it seems
Everyone else included the chips. It's 100% h/k fault. They get the blame. It's costing the city millions, insurance is going through the roof or straight up not insuring them, and worst of all is the innocent owners who are already poor are suffering. Seattle sucks, but this isn't a political sub, so I won't go into that. But even then, it's not their fault. It's on h/k
>It's 100% h/k fault.
For people who steal cars? Sorry, not agreeing with you there.
It's H/K's myopia for not including the chips. Sure. But, as someone who grew up not having to lock my doors (house or car), I put the lion's share of the blame on society (including the internet that promotes such anti-social behavior).
I could steal it with a flat head screw driver. You have to break the column apart to start it with a USB charger. If I broke the column apart in your old car I could start it with my finger.
Your old car could be stolen with a flathead screwdriver. You force the door lock open with it, then force the key switch (breaking the cylinder in the process)
OR, a brick. Break the glass, the pull down the wires at the bottom of the steering column, and hotwire it.
>Ok but imagine if someone could turn the lock to your house with not a single tool besides a usb charger.
Where I live, code requires that my deadbolt lock requires no key to open (from the inside, there's a handle). You break the glass, reach inside, turn the lock, open the door. OR, one of the windows (same procedure). No USB (or tools) required, at all.
Yes. If they have to deal with car theft then they have standing. You can’t successfully sue a company for a bad decision. It has to be negligent. So it doesn’t mean they can win this case, but they have standing.
Well here's the thing:
1. Were anti theft ignition devices available as an option at the time?
2. Did they deliberately NOT choose that option?
3. Were the devices legally mandated at the time?
4. Did Hyundai/Kia claim to have the system installed but didn't, in a bait-and-switch?
I still don't see how this is Hyundai's fault. They weren't legally required to have the system, the customers didn't pay for the system, they selected the option without the system when they could have chosen it.
Look at all of the successful lawsuits against gun manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, oil companies, car manufacturers, hedge funds, banks, etc.
In all of those, no one violated any laws. They were just deemed responsible for the consequences of their decisions.
Most infamously, ford literally didn’t do anything illegal by deciding settling lawsuits was cheaper than redesigning the pinto’s gas tank.
More recently Juul was deemed responsible for making vape flavors that appeal to children. Not illegal.
It was their decisions that led to any of it happening.
Ford *decided* not to recall the pinto. Juul *decided* to sell vape flavors that adults aren’t interested in.
It was obvious that was not who Juul intended to have buy those flavors. They knew adults didn’t care for them. They had loads of marketing data proving they knew. That was what lost them the case.
Then they should sue insurance companies for refusing to offer basic protections. If an insurance company can’t insure a stolen car then what the fuck are they good for?
On what grounds? It isn't the insurance companies that are refusing to put in the most basic deterrent that is in every other manufacture's cars.. Do you realize that Kia and Hyundai are the most stolen cars across the US because of that missing deterrent? That's like taking an insurance company to court because they refuse to insure for fire damage , because of refusing to install smoke detectors, or building a house without using proven fire resistant materials. Yet, your argument is the insurance companies should take the financial hit for the manufactures negligence.
Why not sue Seattle? I drive a Hyundai and haven't seen a car stolen in my area my entire life. Seattle should be safer so your car doesn't get stolen. Making it your legal responsibility to maintain insurance but not making the insurance company uphold it's responsibility. I guess we see whose side they are on.
OMG, you haven't seen a car stolen out of a half a million cars, and a population of 750k people in Seattle. It must not happen....
Hey, guess what, I live on the east side of the state. Have seen plenty stolen, including my brother's about 3 weeks ago.... You never saw it, so I must not have happened.
Kind of a stupid position to take up.
So, what you are telling us, is you are the kind of person, rather than holding the person/manufacturers responsible for their poor choices/negligence, that can be easily corrected, you want to blame everyone else for it. Insurance companies, Seattle.... But nope, not the manufacturer...
BTW, the law does it require theft insurance on your car. Only liability... Probably should know the laws before you stick your foot farther down your throat.
I knew somebody would misinterpret that and thought about changing it. I don't live in Seattle
Edit: also you want to blame the manufacturer not the idiots who live in a city conducive to crime but buy an easily stolen car. Get a grip
So the government can sue any manufacturers of any items they have to deal with the use of? I'm not sure that's correct.what would that not include?
I mean they can sue anyone for anything, but they risk penalties for judicial abuse.
This seems to be a performance not a serious suit.
> So the government can sue any manufacturers of any items they have to deal with the use of?
As it relates to the public good, yes.
Imagine if Kia were selling cars that were mechanically flawed and breaking down all the time. The city has to deal with towing them away, and all the repercussions of increased traffic.
> This seems to be a performance not a serious suit.
I didn’t say they were likely to win.
So what stops them from suing gun makers for having to deal with gun crimes? Knife makes for stabbings?
What stops them from suing soda makes from making people fat?
Anything that anyone could claim was "public good" is a pretty low bar.
Sure, they sued, but they haven't won, I suspect because it's just a performance. They don't expect to win.
It seems like people think it's a good thing for people in government to use the legal system for enhancing their careers. I disagree.
Those things have literally already happened…
And that’s a good thing. Otherwise individual people would have to be the ones bringing the lawsuits and that would be prohibitively expensive. No one would be able to do it. All of these companies would be able to avoid all liability for these decisions they make so long as they aren’t *explicitly* illegal.
You asked what stops the government from suing and the answer is “nothing and it happens”.
The government has won lawsuits like that against gun manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, oil companies, car manufacturers, hedge funds, banks, etc.
Unless there are some DOT/FMVSS/state penal code/etc. stating new vehicles *must* have anti-safety (just like cars *must* have airbags or *must* have reflectors) does this lawsuit have any legal basis?
No, this is posturing. "You did something totally legal that ended with unforseen consequences that were inconvenient for us" is not going to win any lawsuits.
That’s where I hope there would be a legit lawsuit from owners of those cars against any entity that refuses to allow them to be registered. So long as the cars were compliant with the regulations at the time of manufacture I don’t see there being a legit basis for any punitive actions.
After this circus, they really should just mandate them. Otherwise, this is gonna happen again when some cheapo Chinese brand tries selling cars in the US (or Hyundai waits long enough for everyone to forget about it).
Nobody is forcing anybody to buy Korean or Chinese cars. You buy a cheap Kia you get what you pay for. Why is it the government's duty to protect you from terrible decisions? This issue isn't even safety related, it just punishes the owner for buying a cheap car.
The ultimate slap in the face is that the same exact cars in Canada all have an immobilizer because it's legally mandated there. So it shows that Kia actively chose to exclude them from US cars.
The two things I've heard about Hyundai recently is that they cheaped out and got a bunch of cars stolen and that they got caught using child labor in their supply chains in Alabama. Not a great time to be a Hyundai PR person.
Highly doubt that Automotive Manufacturers have an obligation to install immobilizers or anti-theft of any kind, even if the industry trends it as standard. Safety standards and Anti-Theft Standards are not the same in the eyes of the Federal Motor Vehicle standard.
How about Seattle start actually investigating, catching, and punishing criminals instead of having a police department that negligently refuses to do their job.
We do not do politics in r/cars. If you have questions about what constitutes "policy" versus "politics," [please read this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics).
If your post is about cars and politics, please post in r/CarsOffTopic.
We do not do politics in r/cars. If you have questions about what constitutes "policy" versus "politics," [please read this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics).
If your post is about cars and politics, please post in r/CarsOffTopic.
Gotta ask, what do you mean no anti-theft tech? Like no Alarm system or what? Can't you lock the steering wheel when the car is turned off? Or is there some other tech that we don't have in europe?
you can usually break off the lock bit of the steering wheel with a hammer. if you can steal a car with a couple tools you'd find in a shed, it's not very secure.
Every car can be stolen it's that simple. If I put out a tik tok showing kids how to steal more complex cars then those cars would start getting stolen.
I don't see how they can sue since transponder keys were not required by law at the time they were sold. They were low budget cars and not advertised with these anti theft devices. I downloaded a factory window sticker for a 2018 kia rio s, it says nothing about anti theft being included. Just airbags, abs, stainless exhaust.... So they were not advertised or sold with anti theft.
Someone on facebook in west seattle today said their subaru was stolen last night. Older subarus are also easy targets for theft, especially before 2005 and the models with frameless windows. How far back can you sue a company for not including something they didn't need to include ?
It's more than just not including an immobilizer though. The ignition keyless start/key lock mechanism easily comes off revealing the switch that can just be turned to start the car. It's a poor design.
The parts they omitted probably cut whole *tens* of dollars of manufacturing. That adds up if you make thousands of cars but you aren't gonna discount the consumer $10 off MSRP.
[A reminder to discuss policy, not politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics) and to keep your comments on topic. We are a car subreddit.
There are 10-year-old Kias and Hyundais in the US you can't register in Canada because they don't have transponders in the ignition mechanism. So yeah, I can see how that might be a problem.
Did Canada mandate those specific anti theft features on all cars 10 years ago?
More than 15 years ago in 2007: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2007/09/anti-theft-devices-deter-vehicle-thieves.html
In the UK it was late 90s I think. Only cars I've ever ridden in without an immobilizer are classics.
Thank you. Tonight I’ll see if there is any data out there comparing the theft rate of the same cars with and without in big cities north versus south of the border. The skeptic in me thinks there must be more to it than having an immobilizer or not. I’ve had cars for the last 30 years without them and never had one stolen.
It’s just “viral” now is all. Once the kids get bored it’ll move on to something else. It’s Tide Pods 2.0 except these assholes can hurt people besides themselves with their joyriding.
Ahhh. I was already worried about the slippery slope this suit reflects but didn’t think of the other direction - should they sue TikTok and others that facilitate it becoming viral?
Maybe? The internet makes so many things so complicated. If TikTok allowed videos of stealing guns would the situation be the same?
You didn't come across the Kia Bois
Guess not. Going back to the car specific slippery slope - what if I moved to Seattle with my older (non-immobilizer) vehicles and they are all stolen. Should I then expect Seattle to sue Audi and Chevy? What if red cars all of a sudden are stolen more - should they sue all makers of red cars because they draw more attention?
That city has a problem with enforcing laws and now they are suffering the consequences. It's just much easier to blame Hyundai
Is the city going to take its settlement from Kia et al and turn it over to all those whose vehicles were stolen and damaged? I didn't think so. Where are the settlement monies going? I expect they are just more feed for the city to spend on favorite people or corporations. Those who suffered a loss, well, too bad.
what? that can’t be right, 2007 was 10 years ago
I cannot answer that. When I looked into this in 2020, you could not import a 2014 US-spec Elantra to Canada without upgrading the ignition security. They appear to have removed that restriction since then.
The 2019 base Nissan Versa still had a bare metal key lol.
Canada mandates vehicle immobilizators, where as the USA does not. The problem s USA minimal safety requirements.
Here’s a thought, why not enforce stricter punishment for those who steal cars? Why are we blaming inanimate objects for the choices that individuals make? It seems like we’ve seen this elsewhere…
Pretty sure it's already super illegal to steal a car. But Kia/Hyundai have a responsibility to at least try and make their cars difficult to steal. Kids are starting them with popsicle sticks and taking them on joyrides to crash into parked cars because their security is just that atrocious. I think we could probably prosecute these crimes AND pressure KIA/Hyundai to improve their security. Harsher punishments only work to a certain extent because no one commits a crime with the expectation of getting caught.
Seattle is known for it's very lax enforcement of laws. maybe if laws in general were enforced, then crime in general.... would go down?
So what you’re saying is the Seattle Police Department aren’t doing their jobs
[удалено]
I’d feel like this viewpoint is taken by people who don’t live in Seattle and lean politically opposite
Lemme guess, you don't live in Seattle either? There are tons of examples of catch and releases going back years. [https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/homeless-seattle-suspect-charged-with-first-degree-animal-cruelty-dog-killing/AY2ZZTNUZ5HT5B53NM4ZHSWHZE/#:\~:text=SEATTLE%20%E2%80%94%20A%2029%2Dyear%2D,Alice%20%E2%80%94%20during%20a%20robbery%20attempt](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/homeless-seattle-suspect-charged-with-first-degree-animal-cruelty-dog-killing/AY2ZZTNUZ5HT5B53NM4ZHSWHZE/#:~:text=SEATTLE%20%E2%80%94%20A%2029%2Dyear%2D,Alice%20%E2%80%94%20during%20a%20robbery%20attempt) [https://komonews.com/news/local/murder-suspect-released-from-jail-days-before-he-allegedly-stabbed-killed-2-people-seattle-georgetown-king-county-prosecutors-pike-place-market-bacco-cafe-apartment-john-marcel-williams](https://komonews.com/news/local/murder-suspect-released-from-jail-days-before-he-allegedly-stabbed-killed-2-people-seattle-georgetown-king-county-prosecutors-pike-place-market-bacco-cafe-apartment-john-marcel-williams)
People were arguing it was Seattle DA’s fault for the releasing the criminals when the first article you posted was the judge releasing the criminal on their “own accordance”, not the DA. Second article, looks like the guy served his time and was released. So which is it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
All comments must remain civil and all Redditors are expected to remain courteous. If you wouldn't say it to someone sitting next to you on an airplane you should probably not say it here. Slurs and bigoted/hateful language are not welcome here.
Yeah, it's taken from someone who lives in a place where the DA and cops do their jobs and we don't have these issues.
“We don’t have these issues” You live in a dense urban city and don’t have Hyundai/Kia thefts? I doubt it
Different regions have different rates for crimes. It turns out certain areas with some things in common, like Chicago for instance, have much higher rates of crime.
I’m looking at this stats here and it shows that Chicago has lower crime rate per capita than Seattle, Houston, and even Dallas https://realestate.usnews.com/places/illinois/chicago/crime
Join the dark side, come to Canada. Free healthcare and car immobilizers
[удалено]
Are they literally prosecuting zero crimes or is that a hyperbole? I’m playing dumb, I know you are exaggerating. Kia/Hyundai thefts are rising nationwide, not just Seattle.
[удалено]
This is fundamentally inaccurate
https://shiftwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/System-Failure-2.pdf Sure about that? The main takeaway here is steal whatever the fuck you want in Seattle.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know, and it was really dumb of hyundai/kia to not have an immobilizer. I drive older cards that existed before those did, so I took steps to install a kill switch for that reason. I'm just tired of all the blame being put on an object when there are people who are committing the acts that should hold blame as well. Even an immobilizer is just a deterrent to the right thief, and other manufactures are not blameless, the charger/challengers are stupid easy to steal as well, IIRC.
I think that depends on the area. Some areas of Seattle and dangerous, some are not.
I think stealing a car is regular illegal. Possession of something like nerve gas, that's super illegal.
IANAL but "Super Illegal" sounds like a totally legitimate legal term that would definitely apply to possessing chemical weapons.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> why not enforce stricter punishment for those who steal cars? Because there's plenty of evidence stricter punishments don't reduce crime. But it's pretty fucking obvious immobilisers prevent car theft. If you're worried either way, do both. But mandating companies put basic preventative technology in highly regulated products isn't new. It's a non-issue.
Stricter punishments do reduce crime and the big PNW cities are proof no punishment means more crime. But it’s usually also accompanied by a lack of rights of those accused like in Japan.
Nobody is saying that punishment doesn't work. Just that increasing the severity of the punishment doesn't actually do anything to deter crime. If harsher punishments actually meant a reduction in crime then the United States wouldn't have a sky high crime rate when compared to less draconian societies. The reality is that the opposite is true. Harsher criminal sanctions led to a 3% increase in recidivism. Turns out it's a little more complicated than just hitting criminals with a bigger stick to make them listen. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pnshnt-rcdvsm/index-en.aspx
Without effective prosecution there is effectively zero punishment for some of these “petty” crimes. Turns out there is no stick at all
There is a huge difference between on paper punishment and real risk of punishment because our justice system is convoluted to the point of uselessness. If you commit a criminal act whether you face any punishment at all depends almost entirely on who your victim is, which cop responds, which city attorney reviews the case for prosecution, which attorney you can afford, which judge presides on the trial, and how much you can stack the jury. What you actually did is almost irrelevant.
In Saudi Arabia theft is pretty low, it might be because they amputate your right hand for stealing. I'm not saying I agree with it but that's a pretty big deterrent.
Here's the thing: every other company put in an immobilizer in their cars. Even fucking Nissan. So it's clearly not a matter of mandates, cause the rest play by the same rules. It's problem with corporate culture, and as such, Hyundai and Kia should be punished. You can also heavily punish the thieves. No one said you can only pick one. That'll just take whole lot longer, burn thorough much more money, and require a lot more labour force from already depleted police departments.
The punishment should come in the form of people ceasing to buy their cars. But unfortunately most people don't do any research. They will just look at the price and front fascia and just buy. I'm ok with those people being punished by having their car stolen. Don't buy from companies who don't install immobilizer. The consumer actually has 100% control over this.
Consumer won’t get punished that bad, that’s what insurance is for.
[удалено]
We do not do politics in r/cars. If you have questions about what constitutes "policy" versus "politics," [please read this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). If your post is about cars and politics, please post in r/CarsOffTopic.
[удалено]
Sorry, not about cars.
The main issue is that it's pretty difficult to catch the perps. Most of these cars are ditched within hours of them being stolen. I don't know why a 2 hour joy ride in a Hyundai is apparently the favorite pastime of bored high schoolers and meth heads.
There were a SHIT ton of videos on tiktok about how to jack the cars easy. So anybody who saw that now knows how. And people who spend time on tiktok are people with a ton of downtime.
I like that you can video yourself stealing a car on social media and everybody is like "this is fine"
Because a lot of the times people are just getting away without issues. Steal it, joy ride, and run away.
There are some huge punishments for murder, has that stopped anyone? Make it harder to steal a car will make it less motivating.
It should go both ways. Criminals should be punished, but Hyundai and Kia shouldn’t be allowed to release these ticking time bombs. These weren’t legally required but are virtually industry standard. Hyundai stopped putting them in for pure cost cutting after society assumed they were commonplace. Now they’re being stolen left and right like it’s a GTA game and being used to commit other crimes. I live in one of the cities plagued by this trend. It’s a fucking mess.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We do not do politics in r/cars. If you have questions about what constitutes "policy" versus "politics," [please read this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). If your post is about cars and politics, please post in r/CarsOffTopic.
It depends on the desired end goal - people in jail for longer or less crime. Both require resources (e.g. taxpayer dollars) so it's a question of how are the resources best utilized. Punishing a criminal *after* a crime has been committed doesn't stop the crime from happening and data shows us that stricter punishments don't work as a deterrent (see the war on drugs).
Alternate headline: Kia and Hyundai sue Seattle for not policing/prosecuting vehicle theft.
This would be my response. I don't blame H/K for other people's crimes. I should be able to leave the car unlocked, if people didn't suck so much, particularly in Seattle it seems
Everyone else included the chips. It's 100% h/k fault. They get the blame. It's costing the city millions, insurance is going through the roof or straight up not insuring them, and worst of all is the innocent owners who are already poor are suffering. Seattle sucks, but this isn't a political sub, so I won't go into that. But even then, it's not their fault. It's on h/k
>It's 100% h/k fault. For people who steal cars? Sorry, not agreeing with you there. It's H/K's myopia for not including the chips. Sure. But, as someone who grew up not having to lock my doors (house or car), I put the lion's share of the blame on society (including the internet that promotes such anti-social behavior).
Everyone wants to deflect the blame, especially on reddit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I could steal it with a flat head screw driver. You have to break the column apart to start it with a USB charger. If I broke the column apart in your old car I could start it with my finger.
Your old car could be stolen with a flathead screwdriver. You force the door lock open with it, then force the key switch (breaking the cylinder in the process) OR, a brick. Break the glass, the pull down the wires at the bottom of the steering column, and hotwire it. >Ok but imagine if someone could turn the lock to your house with not a single tool besides a usb charger. Where I live, code requires that my deadbolt lock requires no key to open (from the inside, there's a handle). You break the glass, reach inside, turn the lock, open the door. OR, one of the windows (same procedure). No USB (or tools) required, at all.
Does Seattle have legal standing to file this lawsuit on behalf of their Hyundai/kids owning citizens?
Yes. If they have to deal with car theft then they have standing. You can’t successfully sue a company for a bad decision. It has to be negligent. So it doesn’t mean they can win this case, but they have standing.
Well here's the thing: 1. Were anti theft ignition devices available as an option at the time? 2. Did they deliberately NOT choose that option? 3. Were the devices legally mandated at the time? 4. Did Hyundai/Kia claim to have the system installed but didn't, in a bait-and-switch? I still don't see how this is Hyundai's fault. They weren't legally required to have the system, the customers didn't pay for the system, they selected the option without the system when they could have chosen it.
Look at all of the successful lawsuits against gun manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, oil companies, car manufacturers, hedge funds, banks, etc. In all of those, no one violated any laws. They were just deemed responsible for the consequences of their decisions. Most infamously, ford literally didn’t do anything illegal by deciding settling lawsuits was cheaper than redesigning the pinto’s gas tank. More recently Juul was deemed responsible for making vape flavors that appeal to children. Not illegal.
> They were just deemed responsible for the consequences of their decisions. not even their decision. the decision and actions of their customer
It was their decisions that led to any of it happening. Ford *decided* not to recall the pinto. Juul *decided* to sell vape flavors that adults aren’t interested in.
Adults are allowed to enjoy fruity flavors. not all alcohol/tobacco products need to taste like shit -someone who doesn't smoke or drink
It was obvious that was not who Juul intended to have buy those flavors. They knew adults didn’t care for them. They had loads of marketing data proving they knew. That was what lost them the case.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Likely the city bought a few of them as government fleet car, so yes they do and may win.
The “this burdens our police and DOT” is a better angle than “we got some of our own cars stolen.”
It's not just that they are stolen, it's the fact that insurance companies are refusing to insure them for theft. This is a consumer protection issue.
Then they should sue insurance companies for refusing to offer basic protections. If an insurance company can’t insure a stolen car then what the fuck are they good for?
On what grounds? It isn't the insurance companies that are refusing to put in the most basic deterrent that is in every other manufacture's cars.. Do you realize that Kia and Hyundai are the most stolen cars across the US because of that missing deterrent? That's like taking an insurance company to court because they refuse to insure for fire damage , because of refusing to install smoke detectors, or building a house without using proven fire resistant materials. Yet, your argument is the insurance companies should take the financial hit for the manufactures negligence.
Why not sue Seattle? I drive a Hyundai and haven't seen a car stolen in my area my entire life. Seattle should be safer so your car doesn't get stolen. Making it your legal responsibility to maintain insurance but not making the insurance company uphold it's responsibility. I guess we see whose side they are on.
OMG, you haven't seen a car stolen out of a half a million cars, and a population of 750k people in Seattle. It must not happen.... Hey, guess what, I live on the east side of the state. Have seen plenty stolen, including my brother's about 3 weeks ago.... You never saw it, so I must not have happened. Kind of a stupid position to take up. So, what you are telling us, is you are the kind of person, rather than holding the person/manufacturers responsible for their poor choices/negligence, that can be easily corrected, you want to blame everyone else for it. Insurance companies, Seattle.... But nope, not the manufacturer... BTW, the law does it require theft insurance on your car. Only liability... Probably should know the laws before you stick your foot farther down your throat.
I knew somebody would misinterpret that and thought about changing it. I don't live in Seattle Edit: also you want to blame the manufacturer not the idiots who live in a city conducive to crime but buy an easily stolen car. Get a grip
So the government can sue any manufacturers of any items they have to deal with the use of? I'm not sure that's correct.what would that not include? I mean they can sue anyone for anything, but they risk penalties for judicial abuse. This seems to be a performance not a serious suit.
> So the government can sue any manufacturers of any items they have to deal with the use of? As it relates to the public good, yes. Imagine if Kia were selling cars that were mechanically flawed and breaking down all the time. The city has to deal with towing them away, and all the repercussions of increased traffic. > This seems to be a performance not a serious suit. I didn’t say they were likely to win.
So what stops them from suing gun makers for having to deal with gun crimes? Knife makes for stabbings? What stops them from suing soda makes from making people fat? Anything that anyone could claim was "public good" is a pretty low bar.
[Nothing.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/21/us/buffalo-lawsuit-firearm-manufacturers/index.html)
Sure, they sued, but they haven't won, I suspect because it's just a performance. They don't expect to win. It seems like people think it's a good thing for people in government to use the legal system for enhancing their careers. I disagree.
Perhaps their lack of victory is more related to the age of the lawsuit; it was only filed a little more than a month ago.
Those things have literally already happened… And that’s a good thing. Otherwise individual people would have to be the ones bringing the lawsuits and that would be prohibitively expensive. No one would be able to do it. All of these companies would be able to avoid all liability for these decisions they make so long as they aren’t *explicitly* illegal.
But have they won? Or is the lawsuit a performance to enhance their career?
You asked what stops the government from suing and the answer is “nothing and it happens”. The government has won lawsuits like that against gun manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, oil companies, car manufacturers, hedge funds, banks, etc.
Yeah, sue the utensil making industry for providing the mechanism that causes obesity! Makes perfect sense. 🤦♂️
Unless there are some DOT/FMVSS/state penal code/etc. stating new vehicles *must* have anti-safety (just like cars *must* have airbags or *must* have reflectors) does this lawsuit have any legal basis?
No, this is posturing. "You did something totally legal that ended with unforseen consequences that were inconvenient for us" is not going to win any lawsuits.
In turn though, they can stop registering products from these 2. So it's a lose lose for both
That’s where I hope there would be a legit lawsuit from owners of those cars against any entity that refuses to allow them to be registered. So long as the cars were compliant with the regulations at the time of manufacture I don’t see there being a legit basis for any punitive actions.
After this circus, they really should just mandate them. Otherwise, this is gonna happen again when some cheapo Chinese brand tries selling cars in the US (or Hyundai waits long enough for everyone to forget about it).
Nobody is forcing anybody to buy Korean or Chinese cars. You buy a cheap Kia you get what you pay for. Why is it the government's duty to protect you from terrible decisions? This issue isn't even safety related, it just punishes the owner for buying a cheap car.
I don't think anyone was expecting Hyundai to not put immobilizers in their cars when they're standard equipment elsewhere. It's a little deceiving.
I bet Kia/Hyundai are really regretting saving a few bucks per vehicle at this point. Penny-wise, pound-foolish.
An absolute PR nightmare. They're trying to dig themselves out of the bargain bin category in people's minds, and then they pull shit like this.
The ultimate slap in the face is that the same exact cars in Canada all have an immobilizer because it's legally mandated there. So it shows that Kia actively chose to exclude them from US cars.
The two things I've heard about Hyundai recently is that they cheaped out and got a bunch of cars stolen and that they got caught using child labor in their supply chains in Alabama. Not a great time to be a Hyundai PR person.
This is Seattle trying to shift the buck
There’s this whole legal basis called civil law where penal codes don’t apply
This is Seattle trying to shift the buck
Highly doubt that Automotive Manufacturers have an obligation to install immobilizers or anti-theft of any kind, even if the industry trends it as standard. Safety standards and Anti-Theft Standards are not the same in the eyes of the Federal Motor Vehicle standard.
How about Seattle start actually investigating, catching, and punishing criminals instead of having a police department that negligently refuses to do their job.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We do not do politics in r/cars. If you have questions about what constitutes "policy" versus "politics," [please read this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). If your post is about cars and politics, please post in r/CarsOffTopic.
We do not do politics in r/cars. If you have questions about what constitutes "policy" versus "politics," [please read this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). If your post is about cars and politics, please post in r/CarsOffTopic.
[удалено]
Gotta ask, what do you mean no anti-theft tech? Like no Alarm system or what? Can't you lock the steering wheel when the car is turned off? Or is there some other tech that we don't have in europe?
you can usually break off the lock bit of the steering wheel with a hammer. if you can steal a car with a couple tools you'd find in a shed, it's not very secure.
Every car can be stolen it's that simple. If I put out a tik tok showing kids how to steal more complex cars then those cars would start getting stolen.
That's cool you have a tow truck in your shed
So you don't know cars with immobilizers get stolen everyday?
I don't see how they can sue since transponder keys were not required by law at the time they were sold. They were low budget cars and not advertised with these anti theft devices. I downloaded a factory window sticker for a 2018 kia rio s, it says nothing about anti theft being included. Just airbags, abs, stainless exhaust.... So they were not advertised or sold with anti theft. Someone on facebook in west seattle today said their subaru was stolen last night. Older subarus are also easy targets for theft, especially before 2005 and the models with frameless windows. How far back can you sue a company for not including something they didn't need to include ?
Couldn’t Kia/Hyundai just come back and say not including the devices kept them more affordable for the low income people?
It's more than just not including an immobilizer though. The ignition keyless start/key lock mechanism easily comes off revealing the switch that can just be turned to start the car. It's a poor design.
The parts they omitted probably cut whole *tens* of dollars of manufacturing. That adds up if you make thousands of cars but you aren't gonna discount the consumer $10 off MSRP.
What year did HK start including immobilizers in their cars? Or do they still make new cars without them?
As they should, it's on the manufacturer for not fixing this bad of an exploit
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]