They have to include the anti-theft systems in the vast majority of other countries. They made the conscious choice to save a few dollars per car not including it in US models...with predictable impact on US society...because it wasn't required here. Because car companies have fought legislation to mandate it, via lobbyists.
How would you feel if in the rest of the world kids pajamas were made of fabric that didn't burn easily / melt onto skin, but in the US due to lax regulation, companies were making them out of cheaper fabric that is practically tinder and easily melts to the skin, but slightly cheaper?
Would you still bleat about how it's "American politics" and not reprehensible, immoral cost-cutting?
> How would you feel if in the rest of the world kids pajamas were made of fabric that didn't burn easily / melt onto skin, but in the US due to lax regulation, companies were making them out of cheaper fabric that is practically tinder and easily melts to the skin, but slightly cheaper?
This kind of thing is standard practice in almost every industry. Products are generally manufactured according to safety standards that are required in the country of sale. This is especially prevalent in cars. Things like airbags, crumple zones, even seatbelts. Plenty of countries where cars are sold without backseat seatbelts.
Id also be genuinely interested in a source for your claim of immobilizers being required in the "vast majority" of other countries as my Google skills are failing to find it. Furthermore, in the other countries where one is not required, has this ommission led to the same "predictable impacts on society" there?
Not including anti-theft devices that they include in other countries that mandate them is pretty anti-consumer. In this case, it's also extremely costly and dangerous unlike something like not saving website cookies.
Once you’ve had a gun pointed at you from a car, taken down the license plate, then been told there’s nothing they can do because the car was stolen —- you’ll realize that car theft isn’t some individual problem. We’ve had the tech to solve this problem for decades, but car manufacturers decided to save a few bucks.
The easy accessibility of guns in America is not the fault of Korean car manufacturers either. What you describe is not something that people in most developed countries have to worry about.
The tech to make it impossible to start a car without the owner's consent, even when the attacker has hardware access? Are you also selling magic beans and snake oil?
“We’ve had tech to solve this problem” isn’t the same statement as “tech to make it impossible to start a car without the owner’s consent, even when the attacker has hardware access”.
Engine immobilisers cut out all the easy “jam a USB stick in there” attacks, The Kia Boys do not exist in Australia where they’ve been mandatory for 20 years.
Lesson here for Americans - if you want something like this it has to be legislated. Cheap manufacturers will absolutely save a few bucks and not include it if they can.
Case in point: My father was an EE at GM in the 70s. He told me one time that the company knew of a problem in some model from that era where when you made a hard left turn with the air conditioning on, the engine would stall. Fixing it would have increased the cost of each car by 15 cents, so they chose not to fix it. These models were later recalled. I don’t know whether the cost of the recall was more than the cost to have just done it right in the first place.
Which is why many countries mandate immobilisers in cars.
I have had my car stolen twice so this issue isn't distant from me, if it has become a state issue it needs a state solution.
Individual responsibility seems to be the American preference though, on an individual level you have the ability to install an immobiliser, and being familiar with the car's features when you make such a massive purchase shouldn't be unreasonable.
Yeah, I had one with an immobiliser. By the third time it went nuts and blocked me from starting the car it took me about 3 minutes to reset it, and the tools were already kept in the trunk for just this.
Now I live in a country where it's normal to leave cars with open windows and even doors in the street so that they don't overheat in the sun. Sometimes even with keys dangling.
No immobilisers necessary -- only decent people are.
Yeah I ultimately agree with your last sentence, I used to live in a little town where that was the case. But cities will atract all types so you must hedge your bets.
I live in such a place. And have lived in others too. Most are away from cities. Rural south, midwest, even a small western costal city. If I feel compelled to lock my doors when I leave my home, I dont feel welcome in the place I live. Worse, are people who live where they would literally lock themselves inside their own home. I wouldnt wish that level of fear and insecurity on anyone. I fear for our future that this seems to have become not just common, but default behavior.
Well it's no one persons fault, except the criminal obviously. But there are a few contributors, and I feel in the US's responsibility model defending your property is usually your job.
Couldn't a car be stolen also by pointing gun at the owner? The problem is the people the citizens that do these crimes. Not the technical implementations of vehicles.
How would you feel if in the rest of the world kids pajamas were made of fabric that didn't burn easily / melt onto skin, but in the US due to lax regulation, companies were making them out of cheaper fabric that is practically tinder and easily melts to the skin, but slightly cheaper?
Would you still bleat about how it's "American politics" and not reprehensible, immoral cost-cutting?