148
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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.

all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

It's odd that a federal judge denied a class action lawsuit. I didn't know that they could do that.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Who would be able to do that if not a judge?

[-] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago

Honestly thank god, because if being easy to steal was something you could sue for, every bicycle company about to go out of business.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Except we all know that and expect that to be the case when owning a bicycle.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Exactly, it's about expectation.

A good analogy would be: pretend most bike manufacturers successfully make their bikes incredibly difficult to steal using hard, integrated locks, motion sensors, wheel locks, etc. And the user would somehow be none the wiser, it "just works". Your average consumer doesn't know what goes into car security, they just plop the key in and off it goes.

Now imagine if, e.g., Giant was the only bike manufacturer to not have these security features, that people have now come to expect from their bikes. After spending $25,000 on their bicycle, it gets stolen super easily and they now learn that they purchased a theft magnet. This will occur over and over until they get rid of the bicycle. Regular bike locks (The Club™) are super easy to open or destroy, and are barely deterrents.

It's not a fair comparison to compare the unusual theft of a vehicle model that costs upwards of $20,000 to a bicycle where there is no expectation of security and costs around $500 on average.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I like it. This is a good analogy

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I think it's more like failing to meet basic standards and practices for a consumer product. Like how would you feel if the next cell phone you bought couldn't be locked? Failure to comply with basic standards of what your selling is wrong.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The suit also alleges that Kia and Hyundai deceptively assured consumers these vehicles possessed “advanced” safety features, despite knowledge of the “critical defect and its consequences.”

“The impact of car theft on Chicago residents can be deeply destabilizing, particularly for low- to middle-income workers who have fewer options for getting to work and taking care of their families,” Johnson said in a statement.

“The failure of Kia and Hyundai to install basic auto-theft prevention technology in these models is sheer negligence, and as a result, a citywide and nationwide crime spree around automobile theft has been unfolding right before our eyes.”

The suit comes days after a federal judge declined to approve a class action settlement that would’ve offered cash to owners of vehicles prone to theft.

NPR reported in May that some insurance companies — including Allstate — have even stopped offering coverage to owners of vulnerable Kia and Hyundai vehicles due to the high rate of thefts.

Chicagoans who own Kias and Hyundais can share their experiences related to the ongoing vehicle thefts via email to the city’s Consumer Protection department: [email protected].


The original article contains 616 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

This issue has added onto the ever-present feeling of chaos in the US and I'm shocked these companies haven't seen more consequences for this deceit. I really hope they do and we get the recalls these owners deserve, we get new regulation on minimum anti-theft requirements.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I hope they get reamed and I recommend people avoid Hyundai/Kia (although note that while technically separate entities, they do share a LOT of engineering and usually work together) since it seems that while they make nice cars on paper and I enjoy mine in a vacuum, there always seems to be some fatal flaw lurking whether by poor engineering or dumb penny pinching/corner cutting. I'm a car dork and while I was comparing everything before settling on buying my affected Sorento, I never once thought to ask "does this car include an immobilizer and have an easy to defeat ignition lock?" and neither did my parents. Even Nissan included immobilizers on their cheapest models a decade ago.

[-] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 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.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 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.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 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.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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?

[-] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

It doesn't make sense in the US either.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 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?

this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
148 points (96.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

9675 readers
4 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS