Slashdot Mirror
RFID-enabled Vehicles: Pinch My Ride
Billosaur writes "Wired has an excellent article on the problems with the theft of
RFID-enabled vehicles and how insurance companies are so over-confident in the technology, they are denying claims when such vehicles are stolen. Example: "Emad Wassef walked out of a Target store in Orange County, California, to find a big space where his 2003 Lincoln Navigator had been. The 38-year-old truck driver and former reserve Los Angeles police officer did what anyone would do: He reported the theft to the cops and called his insurance company. Two weeks later, the black SUV turned up near the Mexico border, minus its stereo, airbags, DVD player, and door panels. Wassef assumed he had a straightforward claim for around $25,000. His insurer, Chicago-based Unitrin Direct, disagreed." Their forensic examiner concluded that since all the keys were accounted for, there was no way the engine could have been started, despite the evidence that the ignition lock had been forced and the steering wheel locking lug had been damaged."
A local man who was the victim of a Home Invasion was shocked to learn that his insurance claim was denied because "As all of his home keys were still in his property, no one could have entered the house". Shard of broken glass, the robber's blood, his conviction in court and a lucky passerby's videotapes were also dismissed as "clever fakes". InsuranceCo stock jumped another 3 points today...
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
This is similar to the assumption that if your DNA is present at a crimescene, you must by default be guilty.
The man in the headline should clearly be bending his insurer over a barrel and giving them a good legal fucking...
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
...to deny claims. That's what they do. Insurance companies aren't in business to pay for people's losses, they're in business not to pay for people's losses, because the less they pay out, the greater profit they make. The portrayal in The Incredibles was just about dead-on. So getting them to fork over is often like trying to squeeze blood from a stone even at the best of times.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Lloyd's of London denied the Cunard line's claim for the loss of ocean liner Titanic, because "God himself could not sink this ship."
If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
They didn't bother to steal the plus-sized, chrome spinny wheels?
--- What?
You don't think the issue here is RFID spoofing, perhaps?
Argh.
If the car can't (according to the insurance company) be stolen, then by accepting premiums for insurance which covers loss due to theft (without any intention of ever paying said claims), they are comitting fraud. Sounds like some insurance company executives need to go to jail.
Throw away one of your keys before you call the insurance company? :)
Both of these methods are not only possible, but are common and becoming more common every day, especially on high dollar cars which are a big time target for theft, cadillac escalades and lincoln navigators are high on the list in my neck of the woods...
I question your methodology for assesing this man's involvment as well, you remarks smack of ad-hominem attack fueled by your distaste for his choice of driving a "gas guzzling SUV", however you seem to be suffering from the same shortsightedness that many of the savagely anti-SUV crowd does, you neglect to account for the possible neccesity of such a vehicle, perhaps this many has a large family and a boat which he frequently tows? Oh, but then you'd have to get off your high horse ;)
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Exactly. It could easily have been the work of a repossessor looking for a little extra profit. It takes all of about 2 seconds for a repo-man's towing device to grab a vehicle.
Insurance companies will, and always have screwed people.
There is a pure evil greed within said companies that drives them to become judge and jury. Unfortunately the verdict is favourable to the company.
There has always been a drive within the companies to find any way to stop that payout. I had my car stolen 3 times, and the third time they wouldn't put the locks back in as "the previous repair was not up to (company name)'s standard, and therefore not up to insurable level.". The funny part is they repaired it each time.
As the contracts by these companies are as long as my arm, and cover anything including "we don't want to pay out" clause, there is no real legal recourse against them.
More and more companies will use the supposed "infallible product, and therefore not possible" argument, which not only is a very very bad thing (tm), but also something we are going to have to get used to.
These people presume guilty before innocent
bottom line, you are screwed.
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
...which is what I really think is going on here, it's at least partly a classic case of turning off reasoning and common sense wherever technology is involved. The same amazingly intelligent people who can't operate the clock on the VCR are running the world and denying your claims.
Emad Wassef walked out of a Target store in Orange County, California, to find a big space where his 2003 Lincoln Navigator had been.
Big space = 3 normal parking spots
I hope they scrap his SUV and use it to build 3 Civic-sized cars.
Developers: We can use your help.
A common one is pulling the emergency brake in a certian pattern.
Applying occams razor, I'd say that the Navigator was stolen by towtruck, rather than thieves jerking off the emergency brake in the secret pattern to get it to start.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Excuse my ignorance but could somebody explain to me what is so magical about these refid vehicles as to cause one to expect the impossibility of starting them after they are broken into?
Exactly what parts of the car are disabled when refid token is not present?
More over how do those parts KNOW it isn't present?
I mean unless the refid reader is somehow coupled to the spark control computer so that it is impossible to interpose between the refid receiver and the spark control computer I don't see what would stop someone from simply jumpering around the detector.
Even if the spark control computer was in fact coupled tightly to the refid receiver in one apoxy sealed unit so you couldn't interfere, last time I checked replacing the spark control computer could be done in under 15 min if you were good at it. I mean it's not that much different then replacing a hard drive. Even a less compatible control computer would probably allow the vehicle to run (poorly) for a while if I'm not mistaken.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
The European Union currently conduct a consultation on rfid. I really would like to know what the role of governments should be. Governments are lobbied like hell on rfid. Some civil rights groups call them spychips. And lobbyists approach governments. And the question is why? Shouldn't markets decide?
Anyway, I suggest you to fill out the questionaire.
Other intresting consultation links can be found here and here. It is important to get more people involved in these political procedures and legislature who actually know what they are talking about. And I would like to spam politicians with the request for 'better interoperability'. Here the regulator has to take measures. I found it very nice that the EU already considered it. "Interoperability, standardization, governance, and Intellectual Property Rights (1 June)"
So maybe it makes sense to report cases like these to the authorities to avoid madness. I guess they do not read Slashdot.
Ok the point of posting my email address was what? Its up there in my information for the world to see. Trying to attract spam bots to sell me lincoln navigators?
If we had RFID aware gas pumps it would be possible to have a sliding scale of federal gasoline tax. Tax those Lincoln Navigators et al at $1.50 a gallon and let the efficient sippers off with $0.25 per. I guess that would make too much sense.
Listed below, from best to worst, are the tested cars listed by name, points and, where applicable, time taken to gain entry.
"What Car?" Security Supertest League Table
The 26 Cars they Couldn't get into:
1-3: Lexus IS300, Lexus LS430 and Lexus SC430 (100).
4-7: BMW 318i SE, Nissan Maxima QX 3.0 SE+, Skoda Superb 2.5 TDi Comfort, Toyota Camry CDX V6 (95)
8-15: Audi A4 1.9 TDi SE, BMW 735i, BMW X5 3.0d, Citroën C3 1.4 HDi Exclusive, Jaguar S-type, Mazda Tribute, Nissan Primera 2.0, VW Passat V6 4motion (90).
16-23: Audi A2 1.4 TDi SE, Audi A6 Avant 4.2 quattro, Audi TT 180 Coupé, Ford Fiesta 1.4 Ghia, Seat Ibiza 1.4 Sport, Toyota Previa D-4D GLS, VW Golf GT TDi PD, Volvo S80 2.4T S. (85).
24-26: Nissan Almera 2.2 Di Sport, Nissan Almera Tino 2.0 SE+, Nissan X-Trail 2.0 SE+ (80).
The Cars they Could
27: BMW 520i (75) 1min 12sec
28: Saab 9-5 Aero 2.3 HOT (75) 1min 5sec
29: Renault Vel Satis (75) 58sec
30: Jaguar X-type 2.5 (70) 1min 30sec
31: Renault Clio 1.6 16v Initiale (70) 1min 15sec
32: BMW 325i Compact (70) 1min 4sec
33: Fiat Stilo 1.2 16v Active 5dr (70) 1min
34: Mazda Premacy (70) 32sec
35: Honda Jazz 1.4 SE Sport (70) 29sec
36: Renault Avantime (70) 25sec
37: Mazda MX-5 (70) 20sec
38: VW Polo TDi PD Sport (65) 1min 50sec
39: Volvo V70 T5 (65) 1min 36sec
40: Honda Civic Type-R (65) 1min 34sec
41: Mercedes C220 CDi Sports Coupé (65) 1min 20sec
42: Ford Mondeo TDCi (65) 1min 11sec
43: Volvo S60 T5 SE (65) 1min 7sec
44: Toyota Yaris T Sport (65) 57sec
45: MG ZT 190 (65) 50sec
46: Ford Focus ST170 (65) 45sec
47: Honda CR-V SE Sport (65) 43sec
48: Range Rover 4.4 V8 HSE (65) 38sec
49: Peugeot 307 SW 2.0 HDi SE (65) 33sec
50: MG TF 135 (65) 30sec
51: Mercedes SL500 (65) 29sec
52: Peugeot 206 HDi D Turbo (65) 20sec
53: Mini One (60) 50sec
54: Ford Maverick V6 XLT 3.0 (60) 32sec
55: Suzuki Liana 1.6 GLX (60) 28sec
56: Vauxhall VX220 (60) 18sec
57: Jeep Cherokee 3.7 Ltd (60) 9sec
58: Toyota Corolla T Sport (60) 8sec
59: Suzuki Wagon R+ 1.3 GL (50) 48sec
60: Daihatsu YRV F-speed (50) 12sec
To us normal people, the implication of "gas-guzzling" was pretty clear -- that operation of the vehicle has become very expensive recently, you know, because gasoline prices have gone through the roof.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Why is it that most people automatically assume technological solutions to problems are infallible, and don't create any further problems? This certainly isn't limited to insurance adjusters and stolen cars, just another convenient reminder that when faced with something they don't understand, the average person seems to just shut down their brain and move on.
Person files claim, looking for $20000. Insurer suggests a settlement of $0. There's a disagreement about an appropriate settlement.
When there's a disagreement on settlement, you go to court. It happens all the time. One dumb adjuster/investigator can make your time as a claimant difficulty - but by moving to court you can ensure a due process.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
you neglect to account for the possible neccesity of such a vehicle, perhaps this many has a large family and a boat which he frequently tows?
Large families and boats are both lifestyle choices as well. Choices which it's perfectly valid to criticize.
That's no excuse. If he has a boat and so many kids, then he should just make the kids push the boat around while he drives next to them in his two-seater hybrid yelling at them to put their backs into it.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
While I do agree that the Shrill Anti-SUV crowd tends to tar hunters and other people who need a 4wd vehicle with good ground clearance for their offroad work unfairly, the guy bought a Lincoln Navigator. No actual outdoorsman would buy one of those, that guy had it entirely for the bling factor. Even if he did have a large family, your average Station Wagon is a far better choice for getting them around from an environmental impact standpoint and works just as well. Even a minivan would be less obnoxious, especially if he has 4 or 5 kids.
I read the internet for the articles.
a prius allows a certain pattern of engaging and disengaging the parking brake to over ride the security system
Shave and a haircut?
Homer wants to get rid of a trampoline but can't until Bart puts a bike lock on it, then Snake shows up right away to steal it.
Monstar L
Did you even RTFA? Yeah, I didn't think so. If you had, you would have seen just how common and how easy it is for such RFID based systems to be worked around or tricked and, yes, unless you had the right mechanical key, you'd still need to crack the steering column to bypass the mechanical locking system.
I had my suspicions about all of that, but the article pretty much spelled it out. So, by your claim, I can gather that either you completely disagree with the information presented there or you didn't read it. If you did read it, what's your counter evidence? Seeing as you present nothing to backup your claims, I'm left to believe you have no clue what you're talking about.
The guy spent $50 or $60 grand on a vehicle, and you think the extra few bucks in gas are going to break him, and make him commit fraud?
Okayyyyy...
A friend of mine works in a very large dealership of Germand made cars.
New cars all come with a little plastic keyring with a tab attached to it. You scratch the surface of this tab to reveal a "Master Key".
This key is akin to the RFID code needed to start the car, the dealer is supposed to give it up to the customer so that he can order a new set of keys, reprogram the other ones etc..
This dealer has some people scratch all of these tags before they are given to the client, because as we well know, joe client will lose this in a blink.
Without this key you need to contact the factory, wait two weeks, pay a fee and than program some new keys.
On this particular brand, you can program/pair up to 5 keys per car if I remember correctly; only 5 keys can have the same code, I you lose one, you can only have four more etc.. After you've lost these you will need to reprogram all keys once again.
My point is that at any level in this process you could have an insider job from the dealer, the manufacturer, or even some thief which goes through the dealer's bin picking these tabs if they aren't securely destroyed.
Forensic evidence for this kind of theft is nearly impossible to tell, the cars ECU don't usually keep a whole lot of historical data.
Nevermind that, if you get ahold of a dealer's servicing computer and a new ECU worth only a few thousand dollars you can actually reprogram the keys without need for the master key (plus you get to keep the ecu and put the old one back in when you abandon the car).
The difficulty with this method however is not damaging the stering column or the physical lock.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Perhaps, but not ones on from which it is reasonable to assume someone is committing insurance fraud.
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
They can even be brute forced, however almost every car which has a system like this embedded in the car, has an imobiliser integrated into the engine. While it used to be a case of just disconnecting the immobiliser, they're now very tricky to disable. If you force the ignition without an RFID, the imobiliser would activate before the car got down the road. If the thieves were able to clone the RFID key system they wouldn't need to force the ignition in that way. If they forced the ignition without the code, the imobiliser would have gone off. Sounds like either a defective imobiliser or insurance fraud to me.
One not-so-obvious answer may be that the owner had fitted the vehicle with a remote-start system or a 3rd party alarm. In most cases when this is done with RFID enabled vehicles, they have to override the RFID system. The hack to get around this high-tech security? Stick a key under the dash within range of the receiver. This would allow most remote start systems to then work.
If the owner had done this and perhaps the perps had witnessed the victim using the remote-start vehicle, then they had a good target.
Yes, I read the article and read about the back doors, but there's another situation where owners are willfully overriding security systems in order to get the functionality that they want and the manufacturer doesn't give them. Sound familiar?
Their forensic examiner concluded that since all the keys were accounted for, there was no way the engine could have been started,
And if not all the keys had been accounted for, the insurance company would have refused to pay because the guy was careless with his keys.
I hope the victim will be able to recover both his loss and penalties from the insurance company.
Y'know, people have been making that argument to me for the last six years now. Undoubtedly, I've seen people towing boats, trailers, etc from time to time behind an SUV, but by far the most common use I see for SUVs is... drum roll please:
Carrying one person to and from work on the expressway at unncessarily high speeds.
See, the SUV crowd keeps SAYING things like this, but I never really see any evidence that any of it is true. If there's so much need for it, I'd really love to know why I'm never seeing it. I mean, over certain periods of time I'm willing to accept that I'm just missing these people with their massive "needs", but Occam's Razor is starting to tell me that the reason I see these "needs" so infrequently is because they're a crock that people like you invented to justify buying overpriced, under-functional trucks from shifty salesman that you weren't bright enough to handle.
Almost nobody in the U.S., especially in metro areas, can rationally justify an SUV purchase. They get bought because they got popular and people just couldn't resist not having the latest trendy gadget, no matter how expensive and pointless and dangerous it was.
Go play in traffic. Nobody with even half a brain is stupid enough anymore to believe that the majority of people with SUVs bought them for any other reason than they were "the cool thing to have".
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
quoth imdb:
Bob: Did I do something illegal?
Gilbert Huph: [begrudgingly] No.
Bob: Are you saying we shouldn't help our customers?
Gilbert Huph: [pacing back and forth] The law requires that I answer, No.
Bob: I thought we were supposed to help people.
Gilbert Huph: You're supposed to help *our* people! Starting with our stockholders! Who's helping them out, Huh?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Bypass kit, ~10 minute install 'nuff said.
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
Large families and boats are both lifestyle choices as well. Choices which it's perfectly valid to criticize.
Not to mention that an SUV is not the best vehicle choice for a large family. A van is.
www.wavefront-av.com
This makes no sense. The car could easily have been towed away even if it couldn't be driven. Heck, folks expect tow-trucks to be in a parking lot hooking up cars and if the owner comes out and objects the "operator" can "let him off with a warning" and drive away with no one ever realizing that a car was almost stolen.
If anyone sees anything, its a non-descript tow truck with a generic company name and a guy wearing a baseball cap, hooded sweater and sunglasses so you can't tell anything about him except skin color, height and build.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
A poll a while back found 1/4 of americans approve of insurance fraud
y n%5Cdynamicpressrelease_577.xml
http://www.accenture.com/xd/xd.asp?it=enweb&xd=_d
So yeah, not a bad assumption to make.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
In the news:
Half baked insurance companies deny auto claims by default - news at 11p
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
US carmakers and auto-mobile insurers are unshakably certain that vehicles protected by "transponder immobil-izers" can't be driven without the proper keys - or, at least, that circumventing those transponder systems takes more sweat and money than most auto thieves are willing to expend.
I think these companies are seriously fooling themselves. It's not like every crook has to go through the trouble of cracing the system - only one does - they can then sell their crack to everyone else.
Who wants to bet that right now, as we speak, car thieves know more about these systems than the insurance company forensic investigators do?
I don't even know anything about them and I know how this could be done. These systems work like any other public key encryption, they rely on the fact that there is a **private key** in the car that no one knows about. One leak in the system, either in the plant, or in the chip in the car, or in a disgruntled employee at a dealership, and the system falls apart. Boom, it is now trivial to make fake RFID "keys" that respond with the right handshake to private keys sent from the car.
how could the keys "match" if the person reported it stolen with at least one in his hand? If the insurance company is citing Ford serial number, or engine computer records, they are dangerously incompetent. If the keys in Ford records matched the set driving the car, then somebody inside the dealer illegally transfered those keys and is helping organized theft of vehicles. That the insurance agent did't immediately present that info to the police is negligent.
Don't want to be too much of a pedant, but did they
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Link?
The station wagon is probably better for a number of reasons:
1. Less likely to run out of gas while sitting at the gas pump.
2. Less likely to cause you to exceed credit limit while refueling.
3. Less likely to roll over while on highway exit ramp.
4. Less likely to be targeted by thieves.
5. Less likely to use so much disposable income you have to shop at Target.
How does an RFID prevent the car from being stolen by a tow truck? Here is Chicago illegally parked vehicles are moved all the time -- RFID be damned.
Interesting article. I wonder how much of this has been brought on by the insurance companies themselves. Things like denying all your claims or making it a PITA to get your money eventually start to leave a sour taste with people. Eventually even honest people start to think that the insurance companies deserve to get get screwed once in awhile sine they are usually the ones being the PITA. Now of course all this just leads to higher premiums, but if the insurance companies at least acted like they were on your side rather than against you, it could go along way to changing the public opinion.
>It takes all of about 2 seconds for a repo-man's towing device to grab a vehicle.
then why brake the locks? I guess to push it from his shop to the dumping ground? considering the guy was seriously in debt, it is a bit suspicious, but he would need the car destroyed not fixable.
If the car is un-stealable, then why carry theft coverage (finance requires, well ok but they should change that, or require paying insurance companys.)
I do wonder about the rear bumber, if the rear bumper was damaged then he has steering, shifting from park, brakes, and a power source. what else is missing?
While I agree SUVs are bad, Here in Canada, people like them (my mom and also my aunt for example) because in the winter when the weather is bad the ground clearance and 4WD makes them feel more secure when driving by themselves to and from work.
--Valthan
VOICEOVER: Adrian Brody. Mel Gibson. Dave Navarro. What do these people have in common? They all suffer from L.B.S. -- in fact, one in every one-hundred Americans are diagnosed with L.B.S., or "Large Boat Syndrome", every day. And it gets worse: L.B.S. victims routinely have to cope with Sports Utility Vehicle fees and marina docking rental costs just to make it through, day-to-day, with their disease. For just $130 dollars a day --the cost of a single Nintendo DS Lite! -- you can help these fellow Americans. Won't you donate, today?
~jeff
I read an article a week or two ago talking about how people are committing fraud by giving their keys to someone else, who takes the car, dumps it somewhere, and torches it. The article mentioned that a common way to catch these incidents is to ask where the other key is. I think it was in the AAA magazine that I saw it.
I understand the insurance company's side of it in that case, and I wonder if this situation is just one that got "caught" in the crossfire - it was a legitimate claim but looked a LOT like the fraudulent ones.
Towing your family? That, good sir, is utterly barbaric! Won't someone please think of the children?!? With an SUV that big, there should never arise an occassion where it becomes necesary to tow your family behind you! I am outraged!
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
When I was in college, there were groups going around telling women that "you may just not know you were raped." They had a clear goal of blurring the line between the words "rape" and "regret". It is nieve to believe that EVERY woman who claims rape really was raped. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need courts. Just a woman pointing a finger, and the man could be hauled off to jail.
en tee
I cannot believe people are still pushing passive RFID as some sort of security magic bullet. Passive RFID is great for inventory, but for security it is quite possibly the least secure "key" ever conceived. With the proper equipment, a thief can read keys at a distance of maybe a dozen feet and thus can go trolling for key codes with ease in high-class neighborhoods/establishments. There are literally thousands of other options for electronic keys--why on EARTH would someone want to use the only method that can be spied on from many feet away while the keys are still in your pocket? A USB key would be more secure. A magstripe would be more secure. Hell, a fucking barcode stamped on the side of the key would be infinitely more secure.
I'm not saying that this was necessarily how the alleged thieves stole his SUV, but this continued obsession with passive RFID for security (see also: passive RFID home door locks and that company that actually REQUIRED its engineers to implant passive RFID chips in their forearms for access to the server room) is quite possibly the worst example of buzzwords trumping common sense that I've ever seen. A thief need only spend a few thousand dollars on the RFID sniffing/spoofing equipment and he'll have the ability to troll for keys (for cars worth at minimum $20,000+) and clone them with ease. Active (powered) RFID is quite another matter--with a sufficiently large key and a challenge/response mechanism, it can be very secure indeed, but passive RFID blithely broadcasts its code for the entire world to see. RFID of any sort doesn't even make sense in this case--the key has to make contact with the keyhole, so why the hell is there any need to BROADCAST anything? Stick some contacts on it running to a small flash memory chip, or like I said you could even stick a barcode on the damn thing. I guess people simply prefer an expensive, laughably insecure solution over a cheaper, very secure solution so long as the former uses some sexy new technology.
Yes, for slashdotters, where even having a girlfriend is seemingly impossible ..... having a big family is .......?????
..... best things in life are not so free..........
The RFID key doesn't matter. Any car, suv, truck, minivan, or box with wheels can be stolen with a tow truck. End of story it can be stolen just pay the man.
Looks like I found the next thing to sell on ebay. A small piece plastic to conceal the VIN number.
At least then they have to break in first then call the dealer.
Hopefully dealers will take note and say "sorry sir/ma'am we can come tow the vehicle in and do it here".
I have a box, which I built myself from a copy of a commercial tool, that will allow *any* petrol vehicle to be started and driven, without even touching the immobiliser. It's very easy to do. Of course *I* use it to start cars with faulty injection or ignition systems.
Wiggum: We'll track down Simpson with your vehicles anti-theft system.
System: Car gone! Car gone!
Wiggum: Yeah, we know that. Where has it gone to?
System: Cargon! Cargon! Cargon!
Yea, they feel safer because when they hit someone and kill them they're less likely to be hurt.
Protip: 4WD and AWD provide only one useful function: start movement on bad terrain. After that, weight and tire size are the ONLY benefits an SUV has over a car, and they do not contribute to road manners significantly well enough to make them much more useable in poor conditions unless they're in the hands of a skilled driver.
In fact, as an amusing aside, I don't know if there are any SUVs left that don't have ABS since they're so prone to being driven on dry pavement. That works against them in a HUGE way on slick surfaces and probably negates any benefits to be had from tire size and tread when trying to stop in a winter weather.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
What is this "Security Supertest League Table"?
The only thing Google turned up was this:
Lexus: What Car? Uncovers the key to new car security
I'm not defending owning an suv for the bling, but new versions are actually pretty good on gas. For example, My ford 500 gets about 21mpg, advertised 20/21 (city/expressway). The new ford explorer (an suv) is advertised 26/27 mpg. So, actually, it should be noted that not all suvs are bad with gas consumption, thought I can't speak for the navigator. Several of the people I commute to work with have suv's, and they actually use them to drop four kids off at school, and bring the spouse to his/her job location before they get to work. Although these people make up a minority of the suv owners at work. I think that instead of expecting less suvs, and less improper usage, we will simply see more people using them properly. Also, please remember that just because they own an suv doesn't mean they must fill every seat with a human every time they go out. That's a rediculous expectation. With a majority of the american population being obese, I would think that sales of larger vehicles would be expected. For example, I myself am quite overweight (I'm getter better), and I found it entirely uncomfortable to drive anything other than a full-sized car or suv/truck. I actually got cramps from test drives with fuel-efficient vehicles. This is especially important factor for people with long commutes (2 hours round for me). I actually considered moving somewhere else so I could use a prius, until I realized that I don't fit in one. I discovered that, upon question their purchase, most of my suv-owning coworkers falsely believe that they perform better in crashes, and are therefore safer that mini-vans.
Where is my Dodge Caravan with cracker crumbs and baby puke stains?
Yes. And if the insurance comapny has evidence that the guy in the article was upside down on his loan and a few dozen other things were in happenin/done then they can claim fraud, at which point they should turn it over to the police and prosecutor. Just being upside down on a loan doesn't mean you are an accessory to a crime involving the property (car, house, whatever) the loan is on.
See, and here I meant more of a sliding on ice (4WD does indeed help... ever switched to it in mid slide... you regain control significantly faster, also see 2WD V. 4WD in high snow... guess what works better... yes that is correct, a higher standing 4WD,) and if you can't regain control and slide off the road, hitting a tree/lightpost will not be as bad as in a little AWD car. Also the clearance is quite helpful when getting "plowed into" parking spots or if you happen to go into a snow pile that is 3 foot tall).
--Valthan
That kind of clause is rare - especially in personal lines. Even where such clauses exist, they're usually not enforceable.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
- More likely to get a woman to ride with you
Good luck getting a chick in a mini-van...I'm the proud owner of a sports car and and SUV, so I've got all the bases covered. Anyway, gas-guzzling or whatever, both of my vehicles are my choices, and reflect my personal interests. You are more than welcome to drive whatever you desire, however, please allow me to do the same. Chaining yourself to a tree isn't going to make me want to drive something different...so just stop already!
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
What are you talking about? How in the hell is 20 or 27mpg good on gas consumption? My car gets 33/40mpg, which is about the best the market offers in terms of non-hybrid vehicles, and I hardly consider that more than just "good." With all the people driving these supposedly good on gas vehicles getting 20-27mpg, if they all drove mine, with every 3 cars that's 1 less car. That's not particularly good on gas if you ask me.
I drive a 14 year old honda civic that gets 30mpg and cost me about two pay checks, that hardly qualifies me as part of the "SUV crowd". I am simply someone who sees that for some people maybe an SUV is an appropriate choice and just because for MOST people it isn't doesn't give anybody the right to assume that everyone is part of MOST people... Your occam's razor argument is flawed as well, because you have made some assumptions about the nature and intentions of people and then written that off as "the simplest answer" does not make it so... The occam's razor driven conclusion would be something more along the lines of "he bought/owns an SUV because that is what he chose to buy..." attempting to apply occams razor to things questions such as "why did he choose to buy the SUV" is inherintly flawed because there is an arbitrarily large set of answers with similar simplicity... There is nothing more inherintly simple about being ego driven vs. being practical.
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
The Cunard Line didn't own the Titanic. The Titanic was part of the White Star fleet, and sank 22 years before the White Star/Cunard merger.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I have a VW bus, which might qualify for the mini-van title. I've always owned them; so has my brother. We're both married. I think you'll find, at least for those of a certain type, a VW bus, especially a westfalia IS a chick magnet, if you don't mind a bit of underarm hair of course. I'm not talking about my underarm hair by the way.
I laughed at the bit where they say the key's RF signal only goes 7 inches. I get the same laugh when I read about those RF credit card transponders only going 11 inches.
Mine does 13 inches...
I'm always amazed by the tricks car workers and car theifs know. It just goes to prove that saying "locks keep an honest man honest", or however that goes. Once I locked my keys in my car just outside of Detroit. I found a guy to help me out in the yellow pages, who happened to be a recently laid off autoworker, in about 3 minutes he had my entire door panel off and actually took the lock out of the door to make a new key, and I was given a new working key within 10 minutes of him arriving.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Except the fact that I have observed, consistently, over years, that the cause of most SUV purchases, where most is best defined as "nearly all", is egomania.
But, hey, never mind. Even if 1 in 1000 people buy an SUV for a non-egomanical reason that's a good enough chance to take a critical, neutral approach to every single SUV driver, right?
No, of course not. That's ridiculous.
The majority, by far, of SUV owners purchased for ego. I will automatically default to that conclusion when presented with any new SUV driver, and I will almost always be right.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
The RF key does not have a transmitter. It is read passively by the car. RFID tags and RF networks are apples and oranges.
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant to say that the new suvs from ford get better mpg than most of the ford cars do, which is interesting. You are right, 27 is nothing to boast about, but it is better than the model year before it.
Bob: Are you saying we shouldn't help our customers?
Gilbert Huph: [pacing back and forth] The law requires that I answer, No.
because they couldn't afford the $75 (25 gal x $3/gal) in Mexico to fill it up.
if (!sig) { printf("Signature Unavailable\n"); }
HAHAHHAHA.... OMG, I totally missed that!!
manufacturers over ride methodology (I.E. a prius allows a certain pattern of engaging and disengaging the parking brake to over ride the security system and other systems will be disabled by simply removing a specific fuse from underhood)
The over ride pattern for every RFID enabled car I have ever looked at, in addition to opening the passenger door, pushing the brake twice and honking, required that a master key be in the ignition (and usually the car switched on) during the sequence...
otherwise, it'd be fairly simple to open a car, program a new master key, and drive off
An SUV hitting a smaller car- yes the smaller car is more likely to be damaged as it has to absorb more energy. An SUV or a smaller car hitting an immobile object like a telephone pole- you're probably safer in the smaller car. In the first case, the smaller car is probably made by Honda, VW, Saab or a similar manufacturer who has spent some time working to lower injuries and thus lawsuits against them. Secondly SUVs weigh more, sometimes a LOT more like over 8,000lb. If you hit an immobile object, like a rock that SUV has to soak up the extra kinetic energy and most likely that means a crushed passenger cage. An extra four or five feet of overhang and an 8' wide passenger compartment don't mean squat if that pole smacks into the drivers side. The notion that SUVs are safer is FUD.
Well, I was being a little over-zealous with the blanket statement. There are always exceptions to the rule...just kidding.
I'm all for better vehicles, better economy, etc. However I do get a little perturbed with people that want to try to force people into their viewpoint through whatever means. I like my sports car because it is well, fast. We have the SUV because it is convenient. Do we really need that large of a vehicle all the time, no. However, it is very useful when we do need to haul stuff or several people. So given the choice of driving a smaller more efficient vehicle and having the ability to carry more stuff when I need to I'm going to go with the larger vehicle...just in case the need arises.
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
You forgot;
6. Is so emasculating that cops neglect to care if you are speeding.
Your observations are tainted by your assumptions, if you do the majority of your driving miles commuting then it is also a solid bet that the other cars you observe are participating the same behavior (commute hours tend to work that way) such that it is also a pretty solid bet that the majority of the SUVs you see are being used as commute vehicles AND as most people do not car pool it stands to reason that these commuting SUVs are generally carrying one passenger. Likewise if you spent the majority of your day working at a boat launch or at home depot or at a motorcycle dealership (etc) you would also hacve falsy weighted observations where-in you might be claiming "in thousands of cases of personal observation I have concluded that SUVs are generally used by those who are towing large equipment/trailers/boats/motorcycles/etc" AND you'd be similarly incorrect in the psuedo-scientific nature of your observational evidence.
Let's for a moment take one of my co-workers for example, you might see him commuting everyday on the local freeway, and you'd assume that he is some ego driven SUV driver who is in an eternal pissing match with the next guy, but what you'd fail to see is that he commutes only a short distance, has only enough parking for a single vehicle, the SUV was given to him by an extended family member, he uses it one weekends to organize a church carpool, AND he also uses it to tow his motorcycle trailer when him and soem of his friends go dirtbiking... Now seems to me that an SUV would be a perfectly practical choice in this instance AND I'm going to use your same little argumentative crutch and say that occam's razor would seem to agree that this is simple enougfh reason such that it could validate the purchase decision of many others...
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Large families and boats are both lifestyle choices as well. Choices which it's perfectly valid to criticize.
;)
Well, all choices are open to criticisim from some one. Define "large" family. I've got 2 kids. Is that large? It would be if you were in a country were the government wanted every family to only have one child. I'm one of 3 kids. I typically think 4 children or over is a large family. My grandparents would have considered 6-8 a normal sized family and 9 or more a large sized family. They'd have considered a 2-3 child family dangerously small. Why dangerously small? Why 1-2 of them could die on you and you'd only have 1 left over.
We can critize everything about this hypotical person as well. How dare he potentially privately own a boat! Why he would be able to go on lakes and rivers and disrupt environment! The only ones that should own boats should be the government or highly licensed corporate entities that can properly train their boat pilots how to use the boat without disrupting the natural envirnoment! If this individual should ever need to cross water, then he should pay passage on a ship/boat that is properly licensed. What about private rec. boating/ jet sking/ sailing as life style choices? How dare you even think any of those should be legal! They all polute and disrupt the natural environment.
Come on we can critize anything.
OK... I have an example though... a couple winters ago there is a bad curve near where I live, I had a friend slide on it in his Grand Cherokee going probably about 80km/h and hit the telephone pole on the driver side, the engine was pushed about a quarterway into the passenger foot well but he was otherwise fine. Another guy, driving the same corner a couple weeks later slid, hit the pole in a Neon and on the driver side, and the engine ended up in passenger seat, that would have killed a passenger if there was one. The driver said he was also going about 80km/h. And just so you know, the speed limit is 50km/h and the corner has 30km/h signs.
So how come this was the opposite of what you said?
--Valthan
HOW SMART PEOPLE TOW MODERATELY SIZED THINGS WITH CARS
Step 1: Buy a hitch.
Step 2: Buy a trailer.
Step 3: Install hitch and latch trailer.
Step 4: Load trailer.
Step 5: Drive to destination.
Step 6: Unload trailer.
Regarding the dogs, presuming you aren't taking them everywhere, that's no excuse. If you buy a special vehicle type just for your pets, you have much deeper cognitive problems than we can address here.
Regarding the rest of your drivel, nothing you mentioned there either:
1. Fits anything even remotely approaching the majority of people.
2. Can't be done with a car.
Besides, even ignoring the fact that your excuses were pointless and easily overcome, the best overall vehicle type for you is a station wagon, not an SUV.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
'' In fact, as an amusing aside, I don't know if there are any SUVs left that don't have ABS since they're so prone to being driven on dry pavement. That works against them in a HUGE way on slick surfaces and probably negates any benefits to be had from tire size and tread when trying to stop in a winter weather. ''
A while ago they showed on British TV a test of a BMW four wheel drive car. They started at a top of a small hill, covered in grass (the hill, not the driver), on a wet day. Then tried driving downhill very slowly. Unfortunately, the brakes on the four wheel drive car didn't manage to slow it down... Hilarious to watch; would have been quite frightening if you were inside the car.
If you have enough kids that you could use a mini-van, then you either already have a "chick" or you don't have any time to find one.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
OK, so you have a signed letter from the loss adjuster at the insurance company saying that any car that goes missing that has an RFID in the ignition was not stolen. In that case there's only one thing to do: spend $500 on a private eye, find out where they live and what car they drive, and then take it. After all, you have a signed letter from the owner saying that it wasn't theft!
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
welll I suppose if you still live at home... No one said you had to be the driver of the big family SUV.
Collector's Edition
Also, if you RTFA you'll see that the author was successful in using a honda override procedure without a "master key". he used his normal car key with the rfid chip shielded. I'm guessing that maybe you're implying that the ignition must already be switched into the "acc" or "run" position in order for the rfid override to work, which may be true, however the bit about getting the ingition lock into either of those positions doesn't "require" a key so much as it just requires enough force to get the lock to turn, which is basic old tech car theft type of strong arming... The common methods I've seen involve using a body dent puller with integrated slid hammer to remove the lock cylinder and then manually actuating the lock with a screwdriver which has the double effect of both working the ignition switch as well as disengaging the steering lock detent mechanism...
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
Dear Sir,
It has come to my attention that you have no idea what you are talking about. Kindly do us both a favor and come to a basic understanding of the proper application of Occam's razor as a principle for deriving meaning based on the most likely solution to a problem in which inconclusive but significant evidence is available.
Specifically, please come to understand it well enough to know that no intelligent person would be so silly as to attempt to apply it after observing only one data point.
Thank you.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
I thought it was accepted practice to stall, misrepresent, impose legal costs, hide behind obscure terminology in a contract, and employ countless other ways to avoid rendering its primary service.
Until they started to climb a hill, in which then his kids would pass him.
What a crock of shit. I crossed the Alps this summer in my 2005 Prius. Do they count as a hill?
- Paul
Those of you who complain about SUVs and "Gass guzzlers" seem to forget that not every one lives in California. I live in NH and without my 4x4 there'd be a slim chance of getting to work or the grocery store safely or at all during the thick of the winter months. I used to own a Subaru as the best middle ground I could find between winter worthyness and eco-friendlyness but AWD does little good when it's got next to nothing for ground clearance. Now I drive a small-ish Toyota Pickup, not because I WANT to (believe me I'd much rather have my Subaru) but because where I live I'd loose my job or possibly my life without a rugged winter vehicle.
Becides working in IT if I got a call late one night that something had gone down and I need to come in to restart it I'd probably loose my job with the excuse that It will have to wait till the following day when the next plow truck is scheduled to hit my road so I can get out of my driveway. In-fact that was what prompted me to trade the suby in for the pickup there were a few nights the snow was just too high for my car to plow though and my employer was getting aggrivated with my lack of reliabiliy in such situations.
Now if I had a family I'd absolutly be using an SUV over some front wheel drive minivan or station wagon, even AWD models arn't that great because of ground clearance issues. They DO have a point and purpose... I'm not saying ALL SUV drivers do but some of us live in areas where we don't have much of a choice. Just because some schmuch decided they look cool with big chrome wheels doesn't mean the reast of us are driving them for the same reason.
Collector's Edition
Because you basically just compared the single most durable SUV frame on the market against one of the least durable compact frames. Jeep has, by far, the strongest unibody steel frame available, and Dodge Neons are practically wheels wrapped in aluminum foil.
Note that in a well-built machine the engine will not come into the cabin at all, save for a truly ferocious head-on collision. The frame of the car, in such a heavy impact, should partially crumple in on itself to dissipate some of the shock. A BMW 3 series probably could have hit the same thing at the same speed and not had the engine do anything more than possibly break off the mounts and fall out the bottom of the bay.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
My husband and I have a Honda Element, and it's wonderful. It get better gas mileage than the non-SUV vehicle it replaced (Ford F150) and it's more practical. Right now, it has our bikes in the back, so we can stop in the metroparks after work for some biking. When he goes and fixes cars on the weekends, he can fit all his tools in the Element (what he had orginally bought the Ford to do). Then, when it's full of grease from his tools and mud from our bikes, we can just hose it out because the interior is waterproof, and then we can fold back down the seats so our friends can fit in it. As much as I love my Camry, there's just many things we can do with the Element that another car can't do.
Now, the Element is different from most SUVs, and my husband and I are probably different from most SUV owners, but that just shows you can't put all SUV owners in one box.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Dodge Neon (note the side impact rating): http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?i d=382
POOR! In fact, it's death rates are 2-4x worse than say a VW Golf or a Honda CVCC which are about the same size. Cherokees, as it happens, are relatively well-built with about the same fatality rates as the Golf and CVCC. If you research the issue, you'll see the truth in what I've said above, the overall death rates in single car accidents for SUVs and pickups are generally higher than well-built smaller cars. 32 deaths / million for a Cherokee vice 16/million for a Golf. I can't say if this is because of the physics, poor car design, because SUV drivers don't wear seatbelts or maybe they drive faster. That said, I drive a VW bus which is safer in the sense that it has trouble going faster than 50mph to begin with:)
Long ago I heard from a vintage car restorer in the midwest that Rolls-Royces suffer a disproportionate amount of hail damage. Why would a Rolls be more likely to be damaged by hail? A ball-peen hammer is cheaper than payments on a Rolls.
I don't mean to imply that the guy in the article was a criminal. I don't have enough info to judge, although I do wonder that the car was recovered at all, since it seem that people professional enough to defeat these systems would have the car disposed of before it was reported stolen.
p.s.
Not directed at the parent, but to a larger group: What is more revolting than SUVs? Mocking people for the car they drive. Congratulations! You have picked the single most pointless social protest possible. Thanks for nothing. If you want to feel better, do something besides masturbating and hooting.
You were a funny monkey at first. Now we're just grossed out and tired of the noise.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Uh, yeah, we definitly need more people trying to back up and manuever with trailers. Trailers are so easy to work with. And it's really easy to park trailers when you have on-street parking. But other then that you are a genius.
Why wouldn't people take into consideration their dogs when buying a car? Are you trying to be stupid? Wouldn't you call them stupid when you see them driving in a little car with 2 large dogs barely fitting?
You can be as flippant as you like, but the rate at which America consumes energy is a problem. One which is largely ignored by us, but that doesn't make it any less real. We could try and address it (a path which requires us to recognize and yes, criticize, our over-consumption) or we can ignore it until mother nature forces us to deal with it. But hey, why try and plan for the future? Let's just keep this party going! Jumping off a cliff doesn't hurt at all. In fact, it's quite a rush. But the rapid deceleration at the end is pretty painful.
Come on we can critize anything.
Which does not make all criticism equal.
An Element/CR-V is an SUV in name only and has very few of the attributes that are traditionally associated with what is normally known as an SUV. All it is, in reality, is a funny looking Civic with a chassis that's been slightly modified so it better suits the higher, unibody frame.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
Soooo.... people drive SUVs because they're too stupid to learn how a trailer behaves? Can't argue with you there, we're in total agreement: people drive SUVs because they're idiots.
No, I'd call them stupid for taking two large dogs everwhere.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
you neglect to account for the possible neccesity of such a vehicle, perhaps this many has a large family and a boat which he frequently tows?
;)
Hrm.... So let me get this straight.
So not only do we have a guy who drives an SUV, but has no concept of overpopulation's strain on Earth's resources, nor thinks twice about the fact his vacation habits encourage the destruction of waterfront habbitation?
I jest! I jest!
But seriously, no one has to have an SUV. If you have a large family get a mini-van and spend the extra money you save on gas on your kids school supplies or food.
If you have a boat... That's what a pickup truck is for.
But to tell you the truth, most SUV's I see aren't filled with kids nor towing large trailers or boats. Its the office jockey types who have never been offroad their entire life.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
What data was on the blackbox I'm curious speed data excetra....
So the best thing you can do to avoid fights with your insurance company is either to have the transponder removed or disabled and to have it documented, or just not buy cars with that kind of anti-theft protection.
It's a tradeoff on the family station wagon concept on whether or not you need the 4wd or not. You may only need it a dozen times a year, but when ya need it, you usually really *need* it. Most SUVs have at least a dealer option for 4wd so you can choose it, but few full size vans do (do any now?? I don't know...) Anyway, by next year, there will be a plethora of either electric and gasoline hybrids or straight diesel SUVs out there that get "good enough" mileage (for what they do). The market is reacting, just slowly. Me, I'd like a plug in hybrid, diesel for the fuel engine part, normal 4wd pickup, one ton size, with the ability to act as a stationary stand alone emergency generator. That isn't on the market yet, but when it gets there...I'll wait for the rich guys to buy them new then get one several years old, about the same as I do with any vehicle.
:( Fuel'll be 20 clams a gallon with a ration card and RFID/GPS tracker chips charging you dollars per mile on taxes... double :( :(
;). I should start building my conestoga RV wagon now I guess...
rats, I just realised it will be at least another decade before I get my practical ride
good news is, I should have my horse by then
http://www.monolithic.com/. I couldn't afford to build a home though and bought a home that is 25-30 years old. I'm using more energy heating/cooling my home than I should be. Heck, I felt that I was doing good to finally afford to replace all my light builbs to the compact 13 watt bulbs. It's not much, but that's what I can personally afford. Heck, I can't even afford a new car. Part of me is mixed and thinks that the government should buy/recycle all cars after the car is 5-8 years old. Just so we'd be forced into buying newer cleaner energy efficient cars.
You don't think the issue here is RFID spoofing, perhaps?
It's very interesting that you say that, considering that the insurance company, Unitrin, is one of the largest owners of Intermec, Inc... and Intermec is considered the 200 lbs gorilla of the RFID business...
Tell your friends about xenu.net
I had my Integra Type R stolen out of my driveway while I was gone for the night. It was found two days later (minus the engine, suspension, brakes, and interior). The person from State Farm handling the claim clearly thought that I was somehow involved in the vehicle's disapearance, and it took more than two months for me to get a check (while I was still making payments on the car). It turns out that my rental coverage stopped after one month, leaving me soaking the expense while the guy from State Farm drooled on himself.
The steering-wheel lock had been forced, but that wasn't enough. They had to be sure that I wasn't involved before they'd pay me for the car. The immobilizer functions are either tied to the ECU or inline on the way to the ECU. The guys at Sport Compact Car know more about this, and have said that it is laughably easy to just pop in and take the car. For those who want to take a look, I think the ECU is under the passenger-side floorboard.
A neighbor of mine (who also had a yellow Type R) had his car stolen from a mall parking lot while security guards watched. They later told him that the thieves drove up, slim-jimmed the door to get in, popped in an ECU, and drove off in under two minutes.
It's worth noting that I'm normally quite happy with State Farm. I totalled a car on my own, and my wife was driving when we got hit by an uninsured (and drunk, and high, and without a license, and with a warrant out for his arrest, with a cop watching... Seriously, not a joke...) driver, totalling her car. In each case, things were handled quickly, without issue. It likely comes down to the individual handling your claim.
A lot of folks tend to overspend on thier cars and go way into debt. I know folks who did not plan and purchased expensive, big cars\SUVs (40K+), financing nearly all of the purchase price + tax (0% interest is a great deal, right...) or getting into lease. These people now have cars they cannot sell (in today's market, used SUVs are very cheap) because the loan balance, or lease buyout, is far above the market value but cannot drive much, because they can't afford the fuel costs. When people are faced with a $600 car payment and a $600 fuel bill, insurance fraud becomes an option, a way out.
You sound like somebody who has his head screwed on right and wouldn't make the aformentioned mistakes, but you're in the minority when it comes to the American car-buying population. I understand if somebody needs a big car for thier lifestyle or just wants one, but I can't understand going into the level of debt some people have for transportation.
Our family drives small cars (even with three kids, you don't need a minivan/SUV!) and fuel costs are starting to become annoying: I fill our my corolla and it costs $35; I can't imagine the costs for a huge SUV.
If the insurance denies the claim on the basis of all the keys being accounted for, then does the car thief get plausable deniability based on the same?
HA.
Isn't that why people use Vi or Emacs? they are too stupid to use ed to edit their code? And I can't get over the number of people that are too stupid to write their own compiler--some people actually use gcc to compile their code.
Idiots!
1000^4 / 2000^4 = (1/2)^4 = 1:16
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
... then the insurance should be free.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid_pr.h tml
There's some nice videos online of a couple guys starting a vehigle that uses RFID security system.. I think they were made over a YEAR ago..
SO apparently this Research that has been documented and filmed is meaningless to the insurance company ehh ? It looks like this research was done by some Johns Hopkins University students in cooperation with RSA in January of 2005.. I'd say the vehicle owner should present some more evidence to the inurance company and get his claims check..
http://rfidanalysis.org/
This site is worth taking a look at..
far...out
Mine does 13 inches...
Really? But how wide is the RF signal? Because we all know it's about girth.
Live forever, or die trying.
Unless you meant "if they can't find any evidence the car was broken into/hotwired", of course. And that's probably what you meant, so sorry about the noise.
uh. What about collison?
Just remember to lift your feet in event of a front end collision! Got a '71 myself...
Well... that's a lot better - but the end part (which is all that was in the original definition) still feels a bit tacked on. Insurance and litigation are only tangentially related. There's plenty of other sides of insurance where there's no party at fault. If a meteor falls on your car, who are you keeping out of court? You and God?
Like you say at the beginning, insurance is about distributing the burden of risk.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Sure insurance companies do their best not to pay on claims when they can. This is, unfortunately, part of our current uncivil society. For every legitimate claim made against them, there is problably more than one frivolous claim. If you could count on all your customers being honest, this wouldn't be an issue. As a provider of insurance, they have to find the middle ground between two options: pay out on every claim and have premiums that reflect this (read: ridiculously high) or make it impossible to claim and have everyone leave for another insurer.
Those who go with "Fly-by-night Inc" get low rates and a high bar to claims. When I had a big national insurer, I had high premiums but the claims process was never an issue: the customer service was pretty darn good.
Of course, for those interested in a better model, I'd suggest AAA. My wife and I have AAA's auto and home insurance and this month we recieved a "dividend" check of $60. That's the difference between what we paid into the system and what AAA paid out in claims. Our insurance cost is significantly less than what it was with our last insurer, and the claims process is reasonable.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
The immobilizer cuts off the starter circuit. It has a manual transmission, and hence can be push-started easily anyways. Thanks, BCAA, real useful.
I'm sorry sir, you see, your policy clearly states that any claim made by you will not be paid by us.
How's the naked lady?
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
-b.
I decided a long time ago if I need a large vehicle on an infrequent basis it is way more sensible to rent one when I need it so I don't have to drive an extra 2000 ponds of metal around on the way to work, etc.
If you think cars are bad, read ahref=http://www.crypto.com/papers/safelocks.pdfre l=url2html-5078http://www.crypto.com/papers/safelo cks.pdf> for article entitled Safecracking for the computer scientist. The scary bit is that the highest UL rating for a mechanical safe lock delays the intruder by an hour!
In that case, they are using active RFID and my rant is misplaced. However, since they already have contacts on the key for power (since we're talking about the ignition key here and not a wireless keyfob, it's obviously tapping into the car's power), I don't see why they couldn't include a contact for challenge/response and thus avoid all this nonsense of broadcasting. True, this system should be secure (if what you say is true), but the implementation could be broken--e.g. the random number generator isn't random at all--and this would lead to the possibility of cracking the code from a considerable distance using a parabolic antenna. A lot of effort, yes, but it could be worth it if your targets are $40k+ luxury cars and you want to cause as little damage as possible and/or make your getaway as quickly as possible.
There ARE many examples of passive RFID locks (the house door lock and the implanted server room lock I mentioned were both passive RFID), so I just assumed this was one of them. But even if it is not, I still maintain that it is an example of pointless RFID broadcasting when a direct data transfer would make much more sense. If they can make contacts for the power, they can make contacts for the data tranfer.
I would assume they must mean getting into the car, and getting it started. Unless those 26 "couldn't get into" cars had bulletproof glass, I would assume even the crudest of theives could break a window to gain entry.
What does a typical family vehicle need 4WD for? I live in Minnesota, and in winter driving a FWD/AWD sedan/wagon/van will do just as good of a job if not better than the 4WD SUV - especially in the hands of a typical driver. All that 4WD does for most people is get them into more trouble than it gets them out of.
See, you proved that you are, statistically speaking, prefer parking car in places where it is more likely to be hit. So they charge you more. There are no many clear indications to place a person in a particular risk group (age, sex, place of living?), they have to be inventive and use indicators such as tickets and accidents, even those which may not be directly your fault.
Disclaimer: I don't work for insurance company, and I don't like them either.
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
Also if you wish to get a quote make sure you buy at least one policy your credit is affected by insurance quotes as well
If there were any REAL way to drive without insurance, I would've done it from the very begining.
(And no, a $10K bond with the DMV is NOT a viable option.)
When my alarm-equipped car, parked on private property, behind a locked fence, surrounded by security motion-triggered flood lights, isn't (in the InsCo's opinion) parked in a "secure enough" location.
And given that there were SEVEN acts of vandalism / attempted theft in a year, with nothing resulting from the police except a shrug, and my InsCo raising my rates through the freakin roof, my faith in the police & my InsCo very, VERY quickly plummets into the toilet.
And my neighbors now wonder why there's a pistol sillouhette in the rear window with a caption:
"If you're close enough to read this, you're close enough to die."
Sorry for the rant, but you hit a VERY sore nerve. =J
Last summer a BMW Z3 was stolen, which was parked next to our congress house (got the right word?), owner was away for less than 10minutes.
;) I've seen cops just smiling at my direction when driving it, and probably not even checking anything. I've had it for almost 6 months now, and driven nearly 10,000km with it, and i haven't been stopped even once, even if i've been driving they way that could possibly endanger others. (Drifting, no grip on rear and going sideways at higher speeds.)
There's proof that the Z3 alarms were disabled and then taken onto a trailer, car was never found.
- Insurance company refused all claims because:
* This car is one of those "you cannot steal"
* Car was never found
- Insurance company neglected all the evidence that it is possible to steal cars such as BMW Z3
Owner complained about it and there was much of debate over it, i'm not sure what happened in the end.
Teaching of the story:
- Never buy newer than 15years old car
- Never have a car alarm if you wish to get something in case of robbery
In other words, they totally neglect the fact that nothing is burglar proof, you can even steal congress house if you have enough resources and enough information & knowledge.
Oh yeah, i drive a over 20years old Toyota, for which they refuse to give theft insurance because supposedly these cars are too easy to steal. Nevermind the color of my car which works as anti-theft insurance: it's Pink, it's one of the few cars on it's color & looks, you steal it, cops will DEFINATELY find the car if it's on open sight. (I know, color has nothing to do with possibility of giving a theft insurance, it's my own anti-theft measure)
Fortunately, thieves doesn't know that also because of the color, cops never stop you, even the car type & looks are otherwise that you would think cops would stop you and inspect it at every 2nd block.
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
For the ideal vehicle, I think I agree with you on all aspects except for the form factor of the vehicle. Until about two years ago, I drove a Subaru Impreza, which did a marvelous job for my household of two. Unfortunately, it got terminated when an out-of-control SUV slammed into it on icy roads at highway speed. My car was completely under control until the impact knocked it into a ditch.
Give me an all-wheel-drive diesel plug-in hybrid sportwagon like my Impreza, and I'll be happy. As for the price of oil, I'll run it on biodiesel, which has a higher energy density than ethanol, and, unlike ethanol, hasn't lost half its energy content to the fermentation process.
Back to family cars, though, the Impreza isn't a good choice there. A Forrester or Legacy, on the other hand, is good for a family of five, as long as there isn't an obesity problem in the family.
www.wavefront-av.com
These insurance companies know quite well that they are not fooling themselves. They are fooling the customers/claimants. They are fooling the courts when the claimants try to pursue the money they are owed. They are making fools of a lot of people, but not themselves. But if they are, then they are rich fools.
Ok your key was IN your car. Why did the guy have to make you a new key??
I wouldn't want to impose on a Charity when i can spend money on a SUV and concentrate on the things i'm good at. Besides what would i do with my trailer when there is street cleaning?
I'm not even certain Boston allows me to park a trailer on the street for extended periods of time. I'm not even sure how i'd hook up to the trailer of it gets parked in by people. You know everything. why don't you explain it to me?
The instuance adjuster and most posters here are ignoring the obvious.
The man never claimed the engine was started, just that the car was gone.
Suppose the crooks pulled up in their (probably stolen) tow truck, broke the steering and ignition lock so they could put the car in neutral and winch it onto the flatbed, and then took it away.
Bonus points if the crook who broke the locks was dressed in a suit like he owned the car and the truck's driver wore coveralls like he was hired to help the owner of the 'broken down' vehicle.
Consider, if you saw a man in a business suit (minus jacket perhaps) pacing impatiently near a car (not yours), then a tow truck pulls up, the man talks to the driver a moment, gets in the car and does stuff you can't see, then the car is winched up and driven away, would you likely report a theft in progress? Would you likely even watch long enough to see all of that happen? If the owner walks up during the pacing part, just take the car next to the one you wanted.
It's all perfectly plausible (and in fact, known to happen). Sounds like another case of an insurance weasel to me.
Because I lied to save myself a little embaressment, but I guess that didn't work :P.
It was actually a work vehicle, and the key wasn't in the car, but most likely somewhere in a one mile stretch of ditch.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Uhm, this is offtopic, for sure. But it looks like the only way of contacting you. Besides, it's an old thread :)
You used to read my journal, but you haven't posted to it in a couple years. Would you please read this entry?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)