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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?”
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.
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.
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.
There’s a difference between what consumers accept to be standard and what’s legally required. Have you seen the state of consumer protections in the US?
There’s a ton of different ways this could be approached legally from my limited legal knowledge. The entire basis of tort law is being able to sue for damages that were incurred due to actions or decisions of a party that caused you harm. What they did to harm you can be entirely legal. That’s the entire point of civil court. You don’t have to break the law to be sued.
Add comment