Reactionaries have used rising car thefts to justify ineffective tough on crime policies despite widespread knowledge that the increases are largely a result of negligence from Kia and Hyundai and the inability to hold corporations accountable.

  • PowerCrazy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is a ridiculous lawsuit by the city. Why does a car manufacturer have to care about theft at all? I also have no idea why Kia and Hyandai or responsible for Chicago’s crime problem. Reactionary crime policies are bad, reactionary abuses of the legal system by incompetent government official who also happen to be pushing those same reactionary crime polices are also bad.

    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The city’s complaint claims that Kia and Hyundai failed to equip cars sold between 2011 and 2022 with engine immobilizers, an anti-theft technology. Most car manufacturers made it a standard feature over a decade ago, and the automakers have included it in vehicles sold outside of the country.

      Fun fact. These are legally mandated in Canada (since 2007/8). So the north american models are already built to accept the tech.

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yup, my Canadian 2020 Elantra with turn key ignition is chipped. I’m always worried when I go to the US that someone is gonna pop the window, rip off the steering wheel cover and try to turn the barrel just to realize that it’s chipped, then proceed to destroy my interior in a fit of rage because they couldn’t steal the car.

    • chauncey [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Kia and Hyundai skipped installing industry standard immobilizers in order to save money. The cars are incredibly easy to steal. Kia and Hyundai should be held responsible.

    • h14h@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why does a car manufacturer have to care about theft at all?

      This argument doesn’t make any sense to me. Why bother with keys and locks then? Is it more practical to expect society to eliminate literally all crime?

      I’m sure there are good reasons to dislike this lawsuit, but this isn’t one of them.

      • PowerCrazy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Should bike manufacturers be sued as well? This seems like a victim blaming mentality to me. When a car gets stolen there is exactly one party to blame. If I create a line of cars that doesn’t have key’s or locks is that just not allowed according to you? If someone leaves their front door unlocked and they get robbed is it their fault?

        • h14h@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If someone makes a dangerous product, it is reasonable to expect them to include appropriate safety features to reduce the risk their product poses to society.

          The “victims” here aren’t the automobile manufacturers, they’re the people whose cars got stolen and those who were run over by a reckless joyrider or shot in a drive-by enabled by criminals having easy access to insecure, easy-to-steal vehicles. These are all people who wouldn’t have befallen harm if these vehicles had standard anti-theft features.

          The reason nobody’s talking about suing bike manufacturers is because nobody was stealing bikes and riding around shooting people or crashing through the sides of buildings.

          I think there is absolutely a legal argument that anti-theft features are critical safety features in cars, specifically. Not sure whether that argument will hold up in court, but it’s not anywhere near as straightforward as “bike manufacturers don’t have to care about theft, why should car manufacturers?”

          • PowerCrazy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            So wait. Were the only cars stolen in Chicago Kia’s? No they weren’t so your initial arguement hold no water. Cars were stolen by people regardless of anti-theft features and people were killed in “drive-by’s” and joy-rides by people who stole other cars besides Kia’s.

            Maybe we should try suing the owners of the cars for not “securing their property?” Maybe you shouldn’t be able to own a car unless you have a secure place to store it? Sounds like those so-called victims were irresponsible to me.

    • bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only relevant question is whether the cars satisfy the legal requirements of the US, the state of Michigan and Chicago.

      And the answer to that question is presumably yes, considering they have valid license plates.

      If politicians think them unsafe, they need to increase security standards.

    • bossito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As an European I’m extremely confused by this news as well… so Chicago has a high crime problem and the city’s solution is to sue Asian carmakers? Sorry but this only makes sense in the US, I guess…

      PS: maybe Hyundai should also sue Chicago city for failing to curb crime, a failure that leads to many car thefts?

        • bossito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As far as I know these anti-theft measures they demand are optional in Europe and you pay extra for them. If crime is low is not such an issue not having them. So maybe Chicago should bet on reducing crime instead?