Kias and Hyundais Keep Getting Stolen By the Thousands and Cities Are Suing (vice.com) 264
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Cities across the country are suing Kia and Hyundai for failing to install basic anti-theft technology, with a subsequent massive surge of stolen cars burdening police departments, according to lawsuits filed in recent months. Since the beginning of the year, Seattle, Baltimore, Cleveland, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, and Columbus have all sued Kia and Hyundai, which are owned by the same parent company, for selling cars without engine immobilizers, a technology that has served as a major contributor to the plummeting rate of stolen vehicles in the U.S. As the rest of the industry adopted immobilizers, Kia and Hyundai didn't, with only 26 percent of their cars including them in 2015, compared to 96 percent for other manufacturers.
Without the immobilizers, the cars are trivially easy to steal, requiring just a USB cable. A viral Youtube and Tiktok trend instructed people how to steal the cars. Kia and Hyundai cars manufactured without the immobilizers between 2015 and 2020, especially lower-end models like the Accent, Rio, and Sportage, are especially vulnerable. A lawsuit filed by dozens of insurance companies against Kia and Hyundai allege the lack of immobilizers violated federal regulations. The surge in Kia and Hyundai thefts in cities around the country has been staggering and it shows no sign of abating. In a lawsuit filed last week, the City of Chicago said that in 2022, more than 8,800 Kia and Hyundai vehicles were stolen in the city, which accounts for 41 percent of all of Chicago's car thefts, despite Kia and Hyundai making up just seven percent of the city's vehicles. In a press release announcing the lawsuit, the city said it is getting even worse in 2023, with Kias and Hyundais making up more than half of all stolen cars in the city this year. Chicago is hardly alone. [...]
In statements to Motherboard, Kia spokesperson James Bell said the lawsuits filed by cities against the company are "without merit" and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined it did not violate any regulations or safety standards. In June, NHTSA's acting associate director of enforcement Cem Hatipoglu responded to 18 state attorneys general that asked for a recall of the cars by saying, "At this time, NHTSA has not determined that this issue constitutes either a safety defect or noncompliance requiring a recall." A NHTSA spokesperson told Motherboard the agency has been meeting with Kia and Hyundai about the issue but wouldn't say if it agreed with Kia's interpretation. Hyundai spokesperson Ira Gabriel similarly said that all its vehicles are "fully compliant with federal anti-theft requirements." Hyundai and Kia owners can get steering wheel locks from their local police departments or through dedicated websites. Both companies also offer a free software patch that they say removes the threat of theft, which requires visiting a dealer. Bell of Kia says the company has distributed more than 190,000 wheel locks and that 650,000 vehicles have gotten the software update, out of three million total. Both companies now include immobilizers on all their new cars.
Without the immobilizers, the cars are trivially easy to steal, requiring just a USB cable. A viral Youtube and Tiktok trend instructed people how to steal the cars. Kia and Hyundai cars manufactured without the immobilizers between 2015 and 2020, especially lower-end models like the Accent, Rio, and Sportage, are especially vulnerable. A lawsuit filed by dozens of insurance companies against Kia and Hyundai allege the lack of immobilizers violated federal regulations. The surge in Kia and Hyundai thefts in cities around the country has been staggering and it shows no sign of abating. In a lawsuit filed last week, the City of Chicago said that in 2022, more than 8,800 Kia and Hyundai vehicles were stolen in the city, which accounts for 41 percent of all of Chicago's car thefts, despite Kia and Hyundai making up just seven percent of the city's vehicles. In a press release announcing the lawsuit, the city said it is getting even worse in 2023, with Kias and Hyundais making up more than half of all stolen cars in the city this year. Chicago is hardly alone. [...]
In statements to Motherboard, Kia spokesperson James Bell said the lawsuits filed by cities against the company are "without merit" and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined it did not violate any regulations or safety standards. In June, NHTSA's acting associate director of enforcement Cem Hatipoglu responded to 18 state attorneys general that asked for a recall of the cars by saying, "At this time, NHTSA has not determined that this issue constitutes either a safety defect or noncompliance requiring a recall." A NHTSA spokesperson told Motherboard the agency has been meeting with Kia and Hyundai about the issue but wouldn't say if it agreed with Kia's interpretation. Hyundai spokesperson Ira Gabriel similarly said that all its vehicles are "fully compliant with federal anti-theft requirements." Hyundai and Kia owners can get steering wheel locks from their local police departments or through dedicated websites. Both companies also offer a free software patch that they say removes the threat of theft, which requires visiting a dealer. Bell of Kia says the company has distributed more than 190,000 wheel locks and that 650,000 vehicles have gotten the software update, out of three million total. Both companies now include immobilizers on all their new cars.
It's not a USB cable (Score:5, Informative)
Without the immobilizers, the cars are trivially easy to steal, requiring just a USB cable.
It's not a USB cable that people use to steal the cars. They disassemble the lock and then use something to turn the switch. A USB plug is a convenient tool to turn the switch. A thumb drive would work just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people are voting this 'Informative.' :D
USB-3.0 compatibility. (Score:5, Funny)
If you use a USB-3.0 compatible cable (blue connector), you can drive the stolen car much faster.
Unfortunately, those cars are not USB-C compatible, because then you could even recharge the car via the cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Many are saying that a Monster Cable USB-3.0 with gold connectors will let you steal even faster.
Re: (Score:3)
Without the immobilizers, the cars are trivially easy to steal, requiring just a USB cable.
It's not a USB cable that people use to steal the cars. They disassemble the lock and then use something to turn the switch. A USB plug is a convenient tool to turn the switch. A thumb drive would work just as well.
Or a screwdriver, This is so silly
Re: (Score:3)
Actually from the photos I've seen, a screwdriver may not work. It looks like the lock cylinder has been completely removed and there's a tab that is sticking out that needs to be turned (normally by the lock cylinder when the correct key is inserted) that happens to fit nicely inside of a USB-A plug to give more surface area to grip for applying torque.
So really, not a screwdriver as much as a set of pliers, which you are probably using for tearing apart the steering column trim anyway.
Re:It's not a USB cable (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure if it's typical fear-mongering headlines, or just shitty reporting.
Re: (Score:3)
Getting in the car is trivial.
The alarm only goes off for 30 seconds and most people ignore car alarms anyway. I hear them every day in my neighborhood solely because my neighbors are dumbshits and forget how it works every day, apparently.
Popping the steering column cover off is generally also trivial. In most vehicles it's 3-5 screws and a couple of plastic clips that hold it on, and then it comes off in two convenient pieces.
Not sure if it's typical fear-mongering headlines, or just shitty reporting.
I'm sure you don't know cars.
Re: (Score:2)
The alarm only goes off for 30 seconds
Do you know of any case where a car was fitted with an intrusion alarm but lacked a basic engine immobiliser?
Re:It's not a USB cable (Score:4, Informative)
Do you know of any case where a car was fitted with an intrusion alarm but lacked a basic engine immobiliser?
Yes, the Kias in question, when optioned with an alarm. It's literally discussed in one of the linked articles. You may read it at your leisure.
Re: (Score:2)
They gloss over the fact that you have to still get inside
A brick makes that trivial. A car without an engine immobiliser almost universally lacks any kind of alarm.
Re: (Score:3)
My 1983 Ford got stolen in the same way, some time before the idea of "USB" was mooted. As I recall, about then I was agonising between a copy of SCO Unix, or of Coherent from the Mark Williams Company, when I heard about this mad Finn ...
Re:It's not a USB cable (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you pronounce Jaguar?
Arguably, the fact that is is pronounced "HYUN-da" in Korea is irrelevant to how it should be pronounced in the USA.
Re: It's not a USB cable (Score:3)
If your argument is that Americans don't use the British pronunciation for Jaguar, keep in mind the word "jaguar" is an American word.
pronunciation (Score:3)
I'm going to date myself here . . .
When Isuzu first came to the us, they ran a commercial showing a series of Americans trying, and failing, to pronounce it.
It concluded with a Japanese with a notable accent saying, "don't feel bad. We can't pronounce Chevroway, either."
I shudder to think of the reaction if the were to run today . . .
hawk
Re: It's not a USB cable (Score:2)
Versa is the cheapest car in America but even the '07 had immo.
This pisses all over the idea that you have to have an expensive car to have an immobilizer.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because that $30 for the immobilizer and RFID transponder embedded in the key is really going to balloon the cost of the vehicle. I mean, that's a whole 0.173% price increase on a Kia Rio ($17,275) or a 0.1696% price increase on a Hyundai Accent ($17,690) in 2022.
Oh, by the way, having an immobilizer will reduce the insurance premium, so you'll get that $30 back in the first insurance policy you take out, since you are probably buying it on a car loan and the bank will require comprehensive coverage.
10 year warranty (Score:2)
I'll best those car owners are super happy about that 10 year warranty that won't help them now.
Re:10 year warranty (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll best those car owners are super happy about that 10 year warranty that won't help them now.
Unfortunately, the warranty doesn't cover theft. :-)
Re: 10 year warranty (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll best those car owners are super happy about that 10 year warranty that won't help them now.
It wasn't helping them much before. The commonest problems with these vehicles are in the electrical systems (not all of which is covered for 10 years) or the fuel systems (which are recalled on the relevant vehicles, thus you don't need a warranty.) The 10 year warranty only applies to the powertrain, i.e. just the engine and transmission and possibly their control units and the wiring directly between them and the engine/trans, or between them and the battery.
Hundreds of thousands of Hyundais and Kias hav
Cheaper and more productive (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be cheaper and more productive to offer people an add-on immobilizer for these cars? You can get them for under $50.
Oh, wait. Lawyers and politicians wouldn't get richer that way.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd still get your car broken into, though. It's not like thieves can tell from the outside.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd still get your car broken into, though. It's not like thieves can tell from the outside.
Just *also* (wink, wink) put one of those immobilizer stickers on the side window -- problem solved. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
No. The thieves don't know details as to WHY the cars are easy to steal, they're just following a trend. There is also an increase in vandalized Hyundai/Kia cars that have immobilizers and can't be stolen this way, but are getting damaged as people try it anyway because all they see is a "Hyundai" or "Kia" badge.
Re:Cheaper and more productive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That would reduce future thefts, but does nothing about the costs already incurred investigating past thefts which is the entire point of this lawsuit.
Problem solves itself (Score:3)
Cities across the country are suing Kia
Slim basis, and something of a Streisand effect.
A lawsuit filed by dozens of insurance companies
I'm not a legal expert but this looks like the most understandable non-owner group to take action, and will be resolved in court
Both companies also offer a free software patch that they say removes the threat of theft,
Both companies now include immobilizers on all their new cars.
Problem would have solved itself by making people not want to get their car stolen (or not want to pay the insurance to cover the loss) so not buy the cars. But see, problem is well on the way to solving itself.
Keys? (Score:3)
Call me crazy, but maybe car keys would help?
Re: (Score:3)
Dumb keys are the problem. The same models sold elsewhere in the world come with an immobilizer as standard, which talks to the key to do basic verification that it's genuine, and not someone just forcing the lock to rotate.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the modern keys did a 'key' exchange with the ECU?
Say, 20 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Car keys turn a physical switch. Some years ago I had to replace a worn ignition switch on my 1996 Acura. Remove two screws and the cover comes off the steering column. Two more screws and you have the physical switch that the key turns. So 10 seconds and a screwdriver is all you need to start the car.
Re: (Score:3)
Similar on all OBS fords. Pull the cover and you can take out the ignition lock, freeing the column; two torx screws and the ignition switch falls off the bottom of the column, and it has a convenient tab sticking out so you can actuate it manually.
It was similarly trivial on 1980s-1990s Nissans. Pull the cover, the ignition lock is sitting completely outside of the column, there's great access.
But these tricks are no longer amusing in a world in which almost all cars have immobilizers.
Forcing a recall (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting part of the complaint.
"11. Once vehicle theft of Hyundai and Kia models skyrocketed, further expanding the
public nuisance, Defendants could have easily abated the public nuisance by issuing a recall
and/or spending approximately $500 per vehicle to install immobilizer devices.4 Instead,
Defendants again put profits over public safety by passing on the burden of installing
immobilizer devices to the very same customers they put at risk."
If I'm interpreting this properly, it's less about getting money from them and forcing them to issue a recall to retrofit all of these cars.
https://storage.courtlistener.... [courtlistener.com]
Re: (Score:2)
For clarification, this was the complaint as filed by Seattle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The insurance companies could have fronted the 500 per car out of the goodness of their hearts as well, they even have a duty to their shareholders to stem the losses while car manufacturers can hardly be held responsible for a fad which struck a decade after sale.
In the end crime is trivial without total surveillance, just tell the youths what to do on tiktok and they're off.
Re: (Score:3)
Defendants could have easily abated the public nuisance by issuing a recall and/or spending approximately $500 per vehicle to install immobilizer devices.
i.e. "Defendants could have easily spent $1,600,000,000 adding equipment not required by law at time of manufacture to cars they have already sold, up to a decade in the past?" I think the plaintiffs and I have different definitions of "easy" or even "reasonable."
The stolen Kia that was stolen again after it ... (Score:2)
At a certain point nobody know who's car it is.
Consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
Kia's and Hyundais become targets of stop - and frisk
Insurance companies either raise premiums for them sky high, or stop insuring them altogether.
People stop buying them
????
Profit! (For Toyota and Subaru and Nissan etc)
Re: Consequences (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess consumer laws are a lot weaker in the US, but in Europe if a manufacturer failed to add basic security features to a car, features that everyone else has had for years, decades even, they would open themselves up to various remedies from the buyers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the probable outcome here too, because they're import marques and not likely to receive undeserved protection, but it's not a foregone conclusion. OTOH, the EU mandated immos (and while we're on the subject of mandates, ABS) long, long before the USA did, which meant that it wasn't necessary to have lawsuits like this.
My 2008 Versa S has an immo, but no ABS. If I could choose I'd have it the other way around, but this was what was available with a stick in my price range. No way I was gonna fuck with
Re: (Score:2)
It works the same way in the US, but if it isn't a safety or emissions issue, it has to be a specific violation of a regulation. As US federal anti-theft regulations don't require engine immobilizers, the cars are in compliance and not subject to forced remedies. The best the FTC can do is recommend and ask in this case.
H/K wanted so save some money and cheaped out on the immobilizers. Word got around and now they're getting used and abused, named and shamed.
What about Europe? (Score:2)
> Seattle, Baltimore, Cleveland, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, and Columbus
So these cars do have do have immobilizers in Europe?
Re:What about Europe? (Score:5, Informative)
In Europe immobilisers have been mandatory since 1998. Also in Australia since 2001 and Canada since 2007. This is why it isn't a problem in these places. The real problem here is that the US government has never mandated immobilisers as being compulsory in cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know, thanks.
The software patch... (Score:3)
... is probably just disabling whatever command the thieves use to turn the engine on. I'm fairly certain that with the move to software including apps and keyless entry means that a lot of cars are extremely vulnerable to theft. I wouldn't be surprised either if in the years to come cars start getting bricked because some dumbass automaker used certificates that expire in some critical path and they go out of business or cannot be bothered to fix out of warranty cars.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not using software to steal the cars, they just remove the ignition lock and then turn the switch manually. Per TFS the software patch is to enable a software only immo that is enabled and disabled via the key fob lock and unlock. That they didn't already do this is mind boggling, since it would have cost almost nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your insight, however misinformed it is. There is no "command" that the thieves used to steal the car. This is a pure hardware hack. My Sonata was stolen, then recovered. The plastic shroud around the ignition key was removed, the lock portion was of the ignition assembly was forcibly removed exposing a tab that is twisted. A set of jumpers is installed to complete the hack. Twist the tab to start the
Re: The software patch... (Score:3)
The down side to the software fix is that you can't just use the key to get in--you have to use the fob. And the fobs can die, and programming a new one can be expensive.
A really effective anti-theft device is available (Score:5, Funny)
It's called a "standard transmission". In North America, at least, if thieves see a stick shift, almost certainly they'll just move on to another vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a "standard transmission". In North America, at least, if thieves see a stick shift, almost certainly they'll just move on to another vehicle.
Yup, the only thief who will steal one with a stick is a pro, and they’re likely looking for something very specific; which if they want it they’ll get it.
Re: (Score:2)
100% agreed. If a pro sets their sights on your car specifically, your only chance is a decent insurance package, because you're never going to see it again.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not have to drive a worse car just to avoid it being stolen though. I know, manual gear shift cars are fun to drive vigorously, but for day to day stuff I prefer electric or at least automatic shift.
Immobilizers are effective and pretty cheap. Kia and Hyundai fit them as standard in most parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not have to drive a worse car
Pretty much why I won't own an automatic.
Re: (Score:2)
YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!! My soon-to-be-former car is an automatic. The deal was too good to pass on, and it's a brilliant machine, but every time I get behind the wheel, I die a little. Its successor WILL be stick.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason I won't got back to a fossil if I can help it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an unusual use case. Most of my day-to-day driving is to schools in small communities, so I spend a lot of time on paved, low traffic, two-lane roads. So for me, manual is by far the best (and most fun) choice. It's also the safest, because you have so much more control over your car in tricky conditions.
Ironically, I'm driving an automatic at the moment. It's a great car, but it's up for replacement. There's a tach in it, and every time I see that needle jump when the automatic tranny changes g
Obsolete junk. (Score:2)
All this junk is obsolete.
Get electric.
Re: (Score:2)
My 2008 Nissan has both a stick shift and an immobilizer. And it was literally the cheapest car in America at the original time of sale. (Mine has AC and cruise control, otherwise it's an absolute base model.) Kias and Hyundais had an immo everywhere else in the world but here. It's utterly reasonable to hold them liable for deliberately compromising security when they didn't even manage to get their prices down as a result. They just pocketed the money!
how long? (Score:2)
International comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
I just googled the numbers for Germany and the US. Was shocked to find that the number of car thefts in Germany (2021) was 9,805, while the total for the U.S. recently crossed one million (2022). Unbelievable.
Adjusted for the number of cars in both countries, a car is 17 more likely to be stolen in the U.S. than in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you read about things like healthcare, vacation days, workers rights, consumers right, etc.
USB "Key" (Score:2)
Enough (Score:2)
You know, I'm not one that is completely anti-government regulation, but at some point things have got to ease up.
Backup cameras required. TPI sensors required. 1.5 Gazillion airbags required. Anti-lock brakes required. Now apparently ignition immobilizers should be required.
If a lot of this stuff eased up there could be significantly more affordable lower end cars for the poorer class - and with the weight savings they'd probably get better fuel economy (a 1995 Honda Civic got as high as 43 MPG combin
Re: (Score:2)
>> Backup cameras required. TPI sensors required. 1.5 Gazillion airbags required. Anti-lock brakes required
Yep, agree with that statement. They should make the driver airbag optional, for darwinian purposes, so MBGMorden can choose to die.
The other systems should remain mandatory, as they protect mainly other innocent people not involved in your bad choices.
For non-car people (Score:3)
The basic ignition lock on a car is in two parts, the lock cylinder, and the electrical switch. The switch does not lock, and the lock does not switch. The traditional method of stealing old cars was to jab a screwdriver into the lock cylinder then apply some leverage to break it. Once the lock cylinder is broken so that it no longer locks, you can use whatever is handy to turn the plug and operate the switch.
The quality and strength of these mechanical parts varied. Some were relatively flimsy. Some were essentially armored lumps of hardened steel. Most were in the middle - fairly large and robust parts, but made of relatively cheap cast alloy.
Early immobilizers broke the wire that activated the starter motor. In very early cars, these were hidden switches. A slightly fancier version tapped into a normal switch on the dashboard so that, for example, you had to turn the heater blower to level 3 or you couldn't run the starter. Or, you could use multiple switches that had to be set in combination.
Many aftermarket alarms included that function internally, so that the starter could only be operated if the alarm was disabled. (Kia's software update implements the UI portion of this system, but not the mechanism.)
When central locking (unlock the driver's door from the outside with the key and all the other doors unlock at the same time) became common from the factory, some cars included an immobilizer function here too.
In the 1980s, GM started embedding resistors in their keys, with contacts inside the lock cylinder. At this point, engines were somewhat fully managed electronically, so the computer could compare the resistance of the key with a reference value and refuse to start if it didn't match. There were only a few different resistances, so an attacker could guess, but it was still a slight step up.
Next came RFID embedded in the key's bow cover, with antenna coils wrapped around the lock cylinder. This has been very common since the early 2000s If you get a new key cut, you also have to get the ECU into learning mode and teach it the code from your new key. (Dealers typically charged an arm and a leg for this service because they were the only ones who had the tools to get the computer into learning mode.)
Aftermarket remote start systems of this era usually had a compartment where you could put an uncut key blank, but one that had been programmed to the car. There was also a small antenna that you would put inside the steering column near the RFID reader so that the remote starter unit could facilitate the handshake between the uncut blank and the ECU. The blank was left uncut so that it wouldn't operate any of the physical lock cylinders if found by an attacker.
Push-to-start cars that don't have lock cylinders at all use a longer range version of this (think bluetooth range). This system is typically powered by a small battery in the fob, and there is normally an old RFID tag in there too, and a special place in the car where you can set your key on a hidden short range reader for emergency starts with a dead fob battery.
The "long" range keyfob typically also has remote lock/unlock/trunk and sometimes remote start buttons, but those are a totally different system.
Low-end Kia's used the purely mechanical system, with remote lock/unlock buttons on the key. No resistor, no RFID, no long range radio. Unlock or break the cylinder and operate the switch.
Their software update makes the ECU (which I think is a single computer that runs everything) keep track of remote lock and unlock requests from the key's transmitter, and refuses to start the engine when in the locked state. That means that if you walk up to your car in person and unlock the door by physically turning the key in the driver's door lock, you aren't toggling the ECU's state, and can't start the car unless you also press the unlock button on the key.
What about the keyless systems? (Score:2)
$27,000 Gadget Disguised as Game Boy Used To Steal Cars Worth $245K [motor1.com]
Thieves all around Europe are using those devices to steal Kia, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, VW, Nissan, and a few other brands of cars that use the same system.
Re: Lobbyists (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't a problem in Canada because those cars have the immobilizer. Look up replacement keys for those cars. In US it is a simple blank. In Canada they have the chip. The Canadian cars have the immobilizer and the little loop around the key port. KIA/Hyundai cheaped out for the US market. You can look up the part numbers for Canada to see the difference.
BTW, at the time I was happy I could buy a cheap key for my KIA. Thankfully no longer had that car when this became a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Different regulations. Canada says all cars have to have an immobilizer, the US doesn't. Why spend more than you have to on building a car intended to be as affordable as possible?
Why did Nissan keep the immo on the Versa when they brought it to North America and sold it for less than any Kia or Hyundai? Answer, to serve the customer. Apparently Japan understands that, and Korea doesn't, which is why the Koreans omitted the immo when they brought their shitpiles to the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I feel like we should be focusing on stopping the crime and also let insurance companies charge what it takes to cover the losses.
The government doesn't need to be involved. Then, people who live in places where cars aren't stolen can still buy cars without the added expense of the immobilizer and the brutal cost of keys.
People who live places where cars are constantly taken can either pay a much higher insurance premium or buy a car with immobilizers.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, at the time I was happy I could buy a cheap key for my KIA. Thankfully no longer had that car when this became a thing.
There's an easy "fix" for the immo problem if you want cheap keys. Just dig the immo tag out of one key, tape it to the immo antenna (have to take off the shroud first) et voila, you can now use any key that will fit the lock to start the car. Of course, you've also just defeated the immo for any thieves who come along, but hopefully they know your car normally has an immo and don't try to steal it.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a wild guess here that some lobbying was involved. This isn't a problem for Canada or the rest of the civilized world and unique to the USA.
In some countries you can leave the front door of your house unlocked and not fear theft. I guess some US cities would sue such people (provided they exist).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
same cities trying to shake down the car maker, is there a correlation? Next up, lockmakers when someone shows how easy it is to break into xxx lock. It isn't the thieves fault.
Let's say you ran a grocery store, and you keep your stock of premium liquor stacked on pallets on the front sidewalk along with the blocks of salt and firewood bundles.
Every time some passerby violates the honor system and swipes a bottle of cognac, you call the cops and demand that they track down the thief. The cops get irritated with you for wasting their time and resources and demand that you stop tempting people, but you keep insisting that it's solely the thieves fault and the cops need to hold them
Re:Cities with lots of car thieves (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not even going to try to make up a corrected version of the analogy, it's just wrong all over.
What this problem does remind me of is a Kryptonite lock I used to have, which thieves discovered could easily be defeated with a bic pen lid.
Re: (Score:3)
The core problem is that Kia/Hyundai trailed the industry regarding immobilizer implementations by about 20 years.
So Pre-2023 Kia/Hyundais will always need a steering wheel lock or people will assume they are just "takeable".
2007 Honda Civic used to be the most stolen, that was the cutoff year for immobilizer implementation on them.
I have a friend with a 1999 Ford Ranger that has an immobilizer (keys that will start the vehicle or just open the doors).
That delay is the issue. And no "internal" fix will res
Re: (Score:3)
>The core problem is that Kia/Hyundai trailed the industry regarding immobilizer implementations by about 20 years.
That's not a problem if there were no regulations about it.
"that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determined it did not violate any regulations or safety standards"
The lawsuit is basically saying - you have to add non regulatory devices, costing money, to your cars. "Because". Nope.
Now the cities want a recall. Well, they can pay for it, then.
"At this time, NHTSA has no
Re:Cities with lots of car thieves (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Irrespective of your unhinged rant, other grocery stores seem to have easily figured out how to stop the thieves by taking trivially simple steps.
It's not the cops' fault.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
... other grocery stores seem to have easily figured out how to stop the thieves by taking trivially simple steps.
And you're still missing the point.
Kia and Hyundai built the cars with the features mandated by government. From the linked article:
In June, NHTSAâ(TM)s acting associate director of enforcement Cem Hatipoglu responded to 18 state attorneys general that asked for a recall of the cars by saying, âoeAt this time, NHTSA has not determined that this issue constitutes either a safety defect or noncompliance requiring a recall.â
If you buy a 'budget' car, expect it to have the bare minimum required by law. That's common sense.
The real problem is the lack of enforcement and serious repercussions for these acts because a lot of these thefts are done by juveniles, while social media attention keeps glorifying this activity.
And the worst part of it is government is complicit in this, when you have idio
Re:Cities with lots of car thieves (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait 'til these people find out about Masterlocks.
Hooo boy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cities with lots of car thieves (Score:4, Insightful)
If "negligence" can be stretched to cover this one, where its been shown they were in compliance with federal DOT requirements, that is a dangerous road to go down. Pretty much it will mean anyone can be held responsible for anything that goes wrong, because you can ALWAYS say "well you might have guessed ... and you could have done more.."
Reality here is that it isnt as if they sold cars without door locks or without ignition locks. They were not the most robust but were not absent and would likely be adequate for a lot of customers in a lot of situations, such as when the vehicle is mostly garaged and rarely left in unobserved areas. I am sure you don't have man sized window on your house that is shaded from view of neighbors and the street right, nobody could wrap a rag around their hand and put a fist thru and be into your home discretely right? You'd feel it would be unfair if your home owners adjuster denied your claim for negligence based on that right?
The fact is, the regulations should be updated if there is public will to do that. Otherwise the market should take care of it. The police can respond with 'well thanks for making your report here is a copy for your insurance claim, we will keep and eye out of course but more than likely its been chopped, sorry for your trouble' insurance companies can respond by raising rates for comprehensive on these models. Customers can respond by walking into the dealer and explaining to the nice sales drone that if they want to sell one of these things they are going to have to knock off a few grand to cover the higher premiums compared to what is offered for competitors vehicles. The dealer network will probably tell Hyundai, put in better locks because we can't sell this s***-boxes as is.
There is a correct amount of security. I have a convertible, I lock valuables in the trunk (different lock/key) if I am leaving it some place out of my sight. I have one of those battery disconnects (also in the trunk) that basically leaves only a low amp fuse inline when its removed and if you try the starter or otherwise bypass the ignition it will pop. I almost never lock the doors, because frankly I'd rather you just try the door if you are going to rifle thru my glove box for valuables that are not there and check under the seats without taking your pocket knife to my expensive canvas top first. However once someone is in the car its way less suspicious for them to be say tampering with the dashboard than it is to be outside the care trying to pick/jimmy/fish a lock. By the logic these cities are trying to hang Hyundai on here - selling any convertible is negligent. The world has risk you can't eliminate all risks. I think a little more analysis should be done before we decide nobody should have the option of saving a few bucks on car because a handful of inner cities can't or won't provide adequate security for personal property in general.
Re: (Score:3)
The car owners may have a case for negligence. The cities do not. The cities are third parties to the relationship between Kia and Kia owners. They propose that they have standing to sue because they've assigned themselves responsibility for investigating theft, investigating theft is expensive, and stealing Kias is too easy. That's preposterous.
If someone steals my television, it makes no legal difference whether I locked my door.
Re: (Score:3)
> every other car company
What every other car company does is not relevant though. The real question is purely regulatory. What equipment is and is not mandated for the model year? And did Hyundai meet the specification? Those regulations don't leave much ambiguity. In fact, they tend to be very, Very, VERY specific... oftimes well into to insanely obnoxious and outright stupid levels. Look up CARB-compliant cold air intakes for a fine example. And so far as I can recall, there are only three ways
Re:It is reasonable in comparison to other makers (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was the difference between stealing someone's Kia or feeding my kids and not getting evicted, I'd steal a car in a heartbeat.
Uh-oh. It probably sucks to live in a country where even well-off individuals think like you. It might mean that the next time a major economic downturn happens, everything will go to shit and the cities will turn into jungles overwhelmed by crime, like in so many dystopias. Please don't take this personally; I don't know you and mean no offense.
Re:It is reasonable in comparison to other makers (Score:5, Insightful)
If Hyundai / Kia were following what the law said, especially at the time of sale, I don't think you should hold them accountable.
That does not mean they are not assholes for not having a feature which everyone else seem to have at their price points.
And customers should punish them for it by not giving them more business.
Re:It is reasonable in comparison to other makers (Score:5, Insightful)
These cars aren't any easier to steal than they were in 2016. What really changed was the likelihood of being caught and punished.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just rational. If it was the difference between stealing someone's Kia or feeding my kids and not getting evicted, I'd steal a car in a heartbeat.
I remember when my new Honda Accord was stolen out of my driveway. Cop said "Accords are very popular, they are probably joyriding in it, it might turn up". It sure did, with $8000 in damages on an $18000 car (this was many years ago). Dents all over it. I have no idea how many cars they hit with it or who they might have hurt with it. In their haste fleeing from police they even forgot pictures of themselves in my car, showing them partying and with guns.
Stop making excuses for criminals.
Then why is crime lower elsewhere? (Score:2)
In their haste fleeing from police they even forgot pictures of themselves in my car, showing them partying and with guns.
Stop making excuses for criminals.
Car theft is a rational crime. Those people you describe are clearly idiots, but for many, it's a source of income. If your full-time job isn't paying the bills, many think about "side hustles." If you're too ugly for OnlyFans and Uber isn't paying enough, theft is very tempting if you have the skill. Some are broken shitheads. They exist in all countries, but our country has way more than South Korea, for example, or the Netherlands or even Canada. Like all problems, you need to attack it from every angle: reduce motivation, reduce opportunity, enact severe penalties. It's like the failed war on drugs in the 80s. Law enforcement spent all their time going after the sellers of drugs (poor, often black), but barely any penalties for those buying the drugs (more diverse, economically and racially)...so it didn't go anywhere. I say attack a problem on all angles, including making the cars more difficult to steal...increasing jail sentences...reducing need to steal in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
In their haste fleeing from police they even forgot pictures of themselves in my car, showing them partying and with guns.
Stop making excuses for criminals.
Car theft is a rational crime. Those people you describe are clearly idiots, but for many, it's a source of income. If your full-time job isn't paying the bills, many think about "side hustles." If you're too ugly for OnlyFans and Uber isn't paying enough, theft is very tempting if you have the skill. Some are broken shitheads. They exist in all countries, but our country has way more than South Korea, for example, or the Netherlands or even Canada. Like all problems, you need to attack it from every angle: reduce motivation, reduce opportunity, enact severe penalties. It's like the failed war on drugs in the 80s. Law enforcement spent all their time going after the sellers of drugs (poor, often black), but barely any penalties for those buying the drugs (more diverse, economically and racially)...so it didn't go anywhere. I say attack a problem on all angles, including making the cars more difficult to steal...increasing jail sentences...reducing need to steal in the first place.
Like many other city dwellers when I lived in the city I installed my own theft protection systems. Immobilizer switches, alarms, steering wheel locks are common there. Never occurred to me to blame the car manufacturer.
As for the why “We know that a lot of our young people are breaking into cars and stealing cars as almost a dare, or a trend, right now,” Cerelyn J. Davis, the Memphis police chief, told the City Council at a recent meeting. “They are finding it easy to do.”
https://w [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>Well, if every other car company can make something that is more difficult to steal and your department is committing most of its resources to solving thefts of one single car model, it is reasonable to want to hold them accountable.
Well, if they are complying with all regulations, "holding them accountable" is people not buying their cars! Simple, see?
>I support this. Hyundai is a huge, profitable global corporation. If every German, American, and Japanese car maker can do a better job, at the same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lolwut? It's the fault of major cities that a car company cheaped out and didn't include an anti theft feature?