Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Your Rights Online

Winnipeg Demands Immobilizers on High-Risk Cars 242

Posted by Zonk from the tough-claims-agent dept.
mytrip writes with a Reuters article about a new, unusual insurance requirement for drivers in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Apparently Winnipeg is one of the worst cities in Canada for auto thefts. New and 'high-risk' cars will now be required to install an electronic immobilizers in order to qualify for car insurance. "Chomiak said cars are stolen twice as often in Winnipeg as in other Manitoba cities, while a 2005 report from Statistics Canada said the city had a higher per-capita car theft rate than larger cities like Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. The province, where cars are insured through Manitoba Public Insurance, will fork over C$15 million ($14 million) so that owners without immobilizers can have them installed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Winnipeg Demands Immobilizers on High-Risk Cars More

Winnipeg Demands Immobilizers on High-Risk Cars

Comments Filter:

  • So? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G-funk ( 22712 ) <josh@gfunk007.com> on Saturday June 30, 2007 @01:26AM (#19697587) Homepage Journal
    How can this not be a requirement? In Australia it's been that way for ages, and all new cars have to have immobilizers fitted.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by borizz ( 1023175 )
      Same here. It's not an option, it just comes with the car. Just like steering lock.

      Ah well, if the insurer pays for it and it keeps your car that bit more safe, why not do it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by terrymr ( 316118 )
      Yup ... the car I bought about 12 years ago in England had one. It wasn't an optional feature.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by davester666 ( 731373 )
      This totally infringes on the rights of car thiefs. Thiefs have to eat too!
    • More important than the fact that it's "been that way for ages" would be to see the impact it's had on car theft. I would guess it's been significant, thus the impetus from insurers.

    • How can this not be a requirement?

      Pretty much the same way that American laws that you're not used to aren't requirements in your country, that British rules that Mexicans aren't used to aren't requirements in their country, and so forth. It turns out, much to many people's surprise, that the world isn't actually following the shining beacon of Australian automobile law.

      These aren't required in the United States, Mexico, Italy, Britain, Germany or Norway, either. Australia is the first country I've ever h

  • Naive (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 12ahead ( 586157 )
    First thought: electronic immobilizers - why bother? Isn't the way to steal cars these days with a laptop to reprogram all the systems so that the actual think actually drives? How difficult would it be to bypass the immobilizer? Seems to me that they could spend the $14m on installing CCTV or having more police on the street.

    ahem... This is the Anti-Libertarian discussion forum, right?

    • Re:Naive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by borizz ( 1023175 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @01:31AM (#19697605)
      Yes, you might be able to hack around the immobilizer. However, you'd need some hardware and knowledge to do that. It raises the barrier of entry, so less cars will get stolen (that's all the insurer cares about).

    • Re:Naive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @01:42AM (#19697645)
      whats your logic there sunshine? we can't 100% stop car thieft so do nothing about it at all? immobilizers make it hellish hard to steal a car compared to one without. it stops the normal method which is smash a window and rip out the ignition wires and cross them.

      the vast majority of theifts are punks stealing a car for a joy ride, they aren't bright enough or organised enough to have a laptop on hand to hack the cars electrical systems.

      the only cars that might be targeted by professional gangs would be expensive or hard to get cars they can resell, and if you have one of those then you've most likely got state of the art alarms anyway.

      • That doesn't work. You obviously don't actually have any knowledge of how a car works or how car thieves steal cars.

        The steering column has a lock that you have to somehow break. Also, what wires do you cross? Are you expecting to open a panel to find two neatly stripped ends of wire laying about ready for you to touch them and override the ignition system?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by delt0r ( 999393 )

          Are you expecting to open a panel to find two neatly stripped ends of wire laying about ready for you to touch them and override the ignition system?
          In some older cars. Yep. I kept losing my keys. I was always surprised by how easy it was. Also I think that you missed the point. The poster is hardly going to give a 3 point attack plan for cars without immobilizer. The point is that is much *harder* with one installed.
        • That doesn't work.

          Sure it does. It happened to my 2000 Honda Civic seven months ago.

          The steering column has a lock that you have to somehow break.

          The guys who stole my car tore the whole bottom part of the steering column off. Maybe with a crowbar? I only saw the results, not the execution.

          Also, what wires do you cross? Are you expecting to open a panel to find two neatly stripped ends of wire laying about ready for you to touch them and override the ignition system?

          Once the bottom of the steering column wa

      • Re:Naive (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @07:26AM (#19698721)

        the vast majority of theifts are punks stealing a car for a joy ride, they aren't bright enough or organised enough to have a laptop on hand to hack the cars electrical systems. the only cars that might be targeted by professional gangs would be expensive or hard to get cars they can resell,
        You obviously don't know a thing about car theft, except perhaps what you've seen in the movies.
        Here's the top-ten list of most stolen cars [statefarm.com] in the USA for 2005:
        1. 1991 Honda Accord
        2. 1995 Honda Civic
        3. 1989 Toyota Camry
        4. 1994 Dodge Caravan
        5. 1994 Nissan Sentra
        6. 1997 Ford F150 Series
        7. 1990 Acura Integra
        8. 1986 Toyota Pickup
        9. 1993 Saturn SL
        10. 2004 Dodge Ram Pickup
        Professional car theft is ALL about the used-parts markets - stolen cars invariable end up in chop shops and sold for parts. The biggest market for car parts isn't going to be high-end one in a million models, it is the mom and pop with a million on the road models.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by zenyu ( 248067 )
          3. 1989 Toyota Camry

          This may explain why my 89 Camry has been broken into three times in the last year. It never has anything valuable in it and has a 3rd party immobilizer, but it's still $75 & 20 minutes of my time get the right rear window replaced each time it happens. Maybe next year they will move on to the 1990 Camry. :)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
            Do what police in Seattle recommended some years ago, when no car radio was safe:

            Leave your car unlocked.

            That way at least you don't have to replace the window all the time.

            (Better solution: move out of Seattle!)

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by kobaz ( 107760 )
              Here in New York, a friend of mine had a car that kept getting broken into and he was tired of having to replace the glass. He took everything out and left the car unlocked. The next thing that happened was someone stole the distributor. Not the distributor cap, the actual distributor. Bastards.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Reziac ( 43301 ) *
                Stole the distributor? That's just weird... unless, of course, it was a "purchase" by "Midnight Auto Parts".

                Which is why I have a chain and padlock holding down my truck's hood -- I got tired of "donating" my battery.

                Shit, anyone else remember when at least in small-town America, it was perfectly safe to leave your car RUNNING while you ran into the store for a moment? Things have sure gone downhill. :(

        • Professional car theft is ALL about the used-parts markets - stolen cars invariable end up in chop shops and sold for parts.

          I think it depends on the area. My car was stolen for a joyride. The guys who stole it ditched *another* Honda that they had been driving around before that in the same parking lot when they took mine. My previous manager at work had her Honda stolen something like three times by joyriders.

        • Depends were you live. Here in Vancouver most car thefts are drug addicts just wanting to travel for free, joyriders, and criminals wanting transport for their next crime (min-vans are popular for this as they are easy to steal and hold a lot of loot). Most car break ins are drug addicts looking for loose change, CD's and anything else they might be able to fence. Very few stolen cars are not recovered abandonded after a couple of weeks, but usually in bad shape.

          Bait cars have reduce car theft about 40%

        • The original quote is correct. Most of the cars stolen here are by punks taking them for joyrides. Typically they will smash them up before they dump them. Sometimes they will steal several and have demolition derbies on the street. Often they are also used to facilitate the commision of other crimes, like break and enters as well.

          We don't have a lot of chop shops. We have a lot of juvenile car thieves who the justice system seems incapable of doing anything about. Some repeat offenders have stolen lit

      • the only cars that might be targeted by professional gangs would be expensive or hard to get cars they can resell
        It turns out it's not actually all that uncommon for a single thief to purchase a flatbed truck (they're only about $80k.) Once that's done, the immobilizer and a variety of other things are completely moot. As an aside, it turns out cops essentially never second guess a flatbed, so if you don't notice it while the thief is still on the road...
    • Anyone out there familiar enough with the systems involved to describe exactly what they're trying to mandate?

      Most new cars I've bought in the past 8 years or so have had systems that prevent the engine from starting if the car doesn't handshake with a microchip in the ignition key shank. (However, contrary to what some people apparently believe, they don't make the cars impossible to steal, of course.) Is this what they're talking about? I can't imagine it would be easy to retrofit one on a car that doesn'

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by onosson ( 1107107 )
        To address one of your comments - Manitoba Public Insurance pays the entire cost of the immobilizer, and provides a discount on your premium once you have it installed. Also, it seems that most of the vehicle theft here in Winnipeg is by youth taking the cars on joyrides, so the electronic bypass methods are probably not a big issue. And Winnipeg is FAR from any other major cities (Minneapolis is the closest large city - almost 800 kms away!) so I don't think thieves are going to be going cross-border as

      • Re:Anyone want to give details (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @04:44AM (#19698241)
        Immobilisers have been a legal requirement for all cars in the UK for nearly 10 years now. Generally, they're the "microchip in the ignition key" type you describe.

        And no, they're not impossible to work around - otherwise anytime someone lost their keys they'd have to write off their car - but they involve more work than your average teenage joyrider is prepared to put in.

        This has led to a number of alternate attack vectors being used for car theft:

        1. Steal the keys first then the car from the owners driveway. Easy enough if they leave the keys in a bowl by the front door.
        2. Carjacking. (Oh wonderful, we've replaced the essentially non-violent crime of car theft with the rather more violent crime of carjacking)
        3. Steal an older car.

        You occasionally hear of more sophisticated things going on - like showing up in an official-looking tow truck and lifting the vehicle, with a view to sorting out "how to start the damn thing" at leisure - but that's pretty rare.
        • In Canada, people are much more likely to have a gun. The carjackers will then put themselves in more danger, even if they have a gun too. Canadian law is also much more favorable to self-defense actions than in the UK.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by SeanAD ( 743296 )
        You are not far off in being suspicious of this government body's mandate to get immobilizers installed. In theory, it sounds like a fantastic idea; in practice, it can be a disaster: Cars that come with a factory-installed immobilizer are not exempt from MPI's demands. The factory-installed immobilizers aren't accredited, MPI says, so they have to get a MPI-sanctioned immobilizer installed. Often, the immobilizers that are installed wreak havoc with the engine's electronics and/or a previously install

    • Re:Naive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by compro01 ( 777531 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @02:00AM (#19697721)
      How difficult would it be to bypass the immobilizer

      presumablely harder than smashing the window and hot-wiring it.
  • Here's the only thing that wasn't in the summary:

    Most "high-risk" vehicles will include those on the top of the province's most-stolen list.

    Well, there's also a sentence or two from the Attorney General - he thinks this will stop the devastation caused by joy-riding, but you could have guessed that.

  • Eh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tim_UWA ( 1015591 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @01:40AM (#19697633)
    What kind of an idiot is willing to pay however much per year to insure their car, but not willing to pay a measly $80 once-off for an immobiliser?

    Plus, I'd much rather have my car not stolen than have an insurance company give me money when it is stolen. Especially considering the headache you have to go through in order to get it.
    • This is great until your name ends up on the Canadian Intelligence Agencies "Do not drive list"

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by onosson ( 1107107 )
      I'm from Winnipeg, and actually Manitoba Public Insurance pays the entire cost of the immobilizer for the high-risk vehicles, so it's not even a cost issue. Plus, you get a discount on your annual insurance for having it installed as well. I got mine immediately when the program started, it's only saved me money.
    • I do not insure for theft. I only have the minimum insurance required by law.

      My cars are rarely worth the amount of money I'd spend during the car's lifetime insuring them against theft. I drive used cars and since I do not use my car to compensate for insecurity, I have cars that are utilitarian (not desirable for theft.) Plus, if they don't take proper care of my car it wouldn't last them that long anyways. A car is a tool, like a hammer- 100 years ago people had a mentally healthy view of their transport

  • Actually, government insurance works quite well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rix ( 54095 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @02:04AM (#19697731)
    In fact, for profit insurance is stuck in a fundamental conflict of interest; they will be most successful by finding ways to weasel out of their obligations. Government insurance, on the other hand, is beholden to the voters, and doesn't embezzle premiums off into profit. Further, it greatly simplifies the system. If there's an accident, there's only one party to make payments, not 2 or more who will fight about who should pay what percent.

    A well regulated market has many useful places in society, but financial services is not one of them.
    • I always thought it was kind of fucked up here in the US that Auto insurance was required, but not government provided, at least as an option.
      • Most states give you the option of either buying insurance of paying several hundred per year to be legally uninsured. In Virginia, it is $400 to drive around legally uninsured.
    • There is one downside: because they aren't trying to make as much money as possible the government is less motivated to single out people at higher risk for increased premiums (and thus lowering the premiums of everyone else so as to better compete). This means that while on average everyone would still play the same the risker drivers would generally end up paying less for insurance while the safer drivers would end up paying more.

      • Nope (Score:2)

        by Rix ( 54095 )
        Government insurance programs do charge higher risk drivers more. They don't have to make a profit, but the government doesn't like to take a loss either. Government insurance costs less on average, and it's been proven so in Canada.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Somnus ( 46089 )
      I'd rather have insurers compete for my business, rather than the gov't mandating what security-related features should or should not come with my vehicle.

      Also:

      A well regulated market has many useful places in society, but financial services is not one of them.
      What does this mean? Should the gov't provide securities brokerage, or financial instruments like loans or annuities?

      • I'd rather have insurers compete for my business, rather than the gov't mandating what security-related features should or should not come with my vehicle.

        Me too, but it doesn't work that way in practice. Moving from BC (public insurance: ICBC) to Ontario (private) was a nightmare. Despite over 2million KM of safe claim-free driving and being in the statistically safe demographic (40+ 2kids stn-wgn employed), it took me almost a week (4 hrs of shopping, 20 phone calls) to find an insurer willing to sell to me, because I had an 8 month uninsured period. WTF? When I did find an insurer, it involved a couple of hours and three trips, and some invasive disclosu

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rix ( 54095 )

        What does this mean? Should the gov't provide securities brokerage, or financial instruments like loans or annuities?

        The government *does* provide those things. What do you think they're talking about when they say the national interest rate has been raised or lowered? That's the rate at which the government loans money to banks, who then pass it along to individuals, at a profit.

        I'm not suggesting government should open retail banking establishments, but I do think for-profit banks should have their charters revoked. Credit unions and other non profit organizations can perform this function without the inherent conflict

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Somnus ( 46089 )
          What conflict of interest? If you don't like your bank's credit rating, services or fees, move your money to a different one.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kjart ( 941720 )

      As an inhabitant of Winnipeg, I can add some anecdotal evidence. Yearly insurance for my fairly new car is $1500 (this is with a $200 deductible, loss of use coverage and fairly high liability coverage as well). From what I've heard, in Ontario (which is not public insurance) I would be paying 2-3 times as much for the same coverage.

      Also, for the past couple years (if I'm remembering correctly) Manitoba Public Insurance has issued rebates - I got about $120 back from last year. Not a lot, but I don't thin

      • Also, for the past couple years (if I'm remembering correctly) Manitoba Public Insurance has issued rebates - I got about $120 back from last year. Not a lot, but I don't think private insurance does things like that.
        Depends on the insurance company, i guess. I have USAA. It is owned by the customers (i.e., me, among others). They give out rebates whenever they make a bit more than they need for standard operating expenses. I also pay under $700 USD/year driving a 3 year old car with a $500 deductible

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ahodgson ( 74077 )
        My insurance in BC is over $1600.00 for a 2 year old Jetta, and that's with the maximum safe driving discount. BC also has government insurance.

        I just did an online quote for Ontario car insurance (with a Toronto postal code) and it came back with $1330.00 for the same car, and it's better coverage to boot (no deductible).
    • You know, there is a third option between for-profit and government run. For Banks, we call them Credit Unions in the US. For Insurance, the only one I know of off the top of my head is called USAA. They are owned by the shareholders who happen to be the customers. So, everything is for the benefit of the customers and not some outsiders. No problems with embezzlement, either. Also, if the Credit Union or USAA happens to make a bit more money than they need, everyone gets a credit/rebate.

      A well regu
      • That's called a mutual insurance company. State Farm is one, as are most (not all) other companies with "Mutual" in their names. Metlife converted from mutual to investor-owned some years back.

        rj

    • A well regulated market has many useful places in society, but financial services is not one of them.

      So free markets aren't so bad, as long as they don't involve money?

      • But not others. "Free" markets do not exist in any civilized context, and aren't of much use for anything. Well regulated markets can often outperform command economies, and they should be utilized in those cases. Where command economies outperform markets, command economies should be used.

        Roads, emergency services/health services, public utitlites and education are some things that don't fair very well in a market. Dogmatic insistence on one system for everything is asinine, and is about as sensible as dri
    • In fact, for profit insurance is stuck in a fundamental conflict of interest; they will be most successful by finding ways to weasel out of their obligations.

      That's not the only conflict. No peril, no need for insurance...invent an unstealable car and there goes the car theft insurance bidness.

      rj

    • (I'll put aside the ill-founded complaint of 3rd party stockholders making a profit off your insurance, thanks to the existence of mutual insurance companies [wikipedia.org].)

      In fact, for profit insurance is stuck in a fundamental conflict of interest; they will be most successful by finding ways to weasel out of their obligations. Government insurance, on the other hand, is beholden to the voters, and doesn't embezzle premiums off into profit. Further, it greatly simplifies the system. If there's an accident, there's only one party to make payments, not 2 or more who will fight about who should pay what percent.

      When you get in a crash, the other policyholders at the same company pay for your repairs. The insurance company (or government) is not the one ultimately on the hook for this money, because the only place they get money is from those other policyholders. When an insurance company denies frivolous claims, it is actually acting on behalf of all the ot

      • Under a government run insurance program, there is a single responsible party. Hit by someone without insurance? The government insurance agency is still responsible. The stingyness of the agency is set by public choice through democracy, which is far more efficient than market choice.

        The market has no input on who I get in an accident with.
  • Look up WTF an immobilizer was. Then again i dont think i've ever driven a car built within the last 8 years.
  • On one hand, if people are required to have insurance, this is essentially forcing them to buy a product, which doesn't seem like a fair thing for the consumers. In that respect, I want to say that maybe there is room to disagree with the decision. On the other hand, if car theft rates are so high, the only realistic options for the insurance companies is to either make people take steps to lower their risk or to raise the rates to compensate for the increased risk. In the end, it boils down to the fact

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kjart ( 941720 )

      On one hand, if people are required to have insurance, this is essentially forcing them to buy a product, which doesn't seem like a fair thing for the consumers.

      FYI, most people can get them installed for free (MPI, the insurance 'company', pays for them) and having one installed will lower the cost of your insurance.

  • Old cars had them... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bazman ( 4849 ) on Saturday June 30, 2007 @03:03AM (#19697977) Journal
    All old (non-diesel) cars had engine immobilizers. You popped the top off the distributor cap and took the rotor arm out. How many joy riders carried a selection of spare parts with them? Ah, the joy of analogue tech.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Inoshiro ( 71693 )
      It's a lot easier to take the ignition coil wire off of older cars (you don't need a screwdriver). Newer cars, while distributor-less, still have easy-to-remove wires linking the electrical system to the spark plugs.

      Personally, I find the best anti-theft method is simply to drive a car from the 1980s.
    • And on an old VW diesel, you take out the #1 glow plug and remove the wire for the fuel cutoff solenoid. Helps to take the X-relay with you, too, but that's hard to get to on some cars.

      #1 glow plug removed: Easy to get to, means cylinder #4 has no compression.
      Fuel cutoff solenoid wire removed: Keeps the fuel pump from delivering fuel - you get a sputter at best with it removed. Of course, you can always ride the starter
      X-relay removed: Distributes power to the car. If they figure out that you unplugged the
  • why is the city mandating immobilisers? Surely it's the job of the insurance companies to raise the premiums for those cars without immobilisers. Then it's up to the owner to either buy a car with one fitted, or else pay for one to be fitted himself and benefit from the reduced premiums.

    The city should NOT be getting involved... and why is there only one insurance company for that city anyway... that's weird. Is this some mandated monopoly and the others can't do business there?

    • It's Canada. Just... just ignore them. It's easier that way..
    • Several (but not all) Canadian provinces have mandatory public auto insurances. It's a government monopoly.

      A few people in Alberta, which has a private system, actually try to (illegally) take out insurance by claiming they live in Saskatchewan, which has a public system and lower rates. Of course, they get the lower rates by limiting your right to sue if you get involved in an accident. It is also, arguably, more efficient.

      More information about Manitoba Public Insurance [mpi.mb.ca].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ari_j ( 90255 )
      Maybe you missed that the name of that one and only insurance company for the entire province of Manitoba (not just for the city) is Manitoba Public Insurance. It's not only a mandatory monopoly, but as far as I'm aware it's fully owned and operated by the provincial government. (IANAC, although I spent 21 years of my life within hours of Winnipeg.)
  • "Chomiak said cars are stolen twice as often in Winnipeg as in other Manitoba cities,"

    You mean there are other cities in Manitoba?
  • Putting an immobilizer on all Accords and Civics is stupid. Any given Civic is not at high risk for theft. On the other hand, any given Cadillac Escalade is at high risk for theft and is an expensive insurance payout. It would make more fiscal sense to put lo-jack transponders on Escalades than to put immobilizers on Civics.

    Although the Civic is always near the top of the list of most stolen cars, it makes it there for two reasons; it is popular and cheap. By being popular, if cars were stolen based o

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close