Slashdot Mirror
Winnipeg Demands Immobilizers on High-Risk Cars
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."
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.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
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.
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't have one already, since it's a pretty integral part of the ignition system and ECU.
According to this page, there are only a few immobilizers that pass some sort of Canadian standard, but I couldn't get any information on how they work by Googling them, and they don't seem to be widespread outside of Canada. (Or actually outside the province of Manitoba at all.) The small number of approved designs combined with making them very widespread via compulsory installation seems like a recipe for disaster: if the thieves are already getting past the safeguards built into modern cars from the factory, they're not stupid; I expect it won't be long before how to bypass them becomes common knowledge. [1]
I think this is the web site of one manufacturer of approved devices, Autowatch. Basically they look like some sort of key-fob RF transponder that communicates either automatically or on-command with a receiver in the car that immobilizes it. Seems like there's a variety of attack vectors there, from just routing around the disablement device in the car, to faking the code (easy if it's a rolling-code system, harder if it's a public-key handshake). Ups the ante a little bit, and it might make thieves target older cars instead of newer ones (which doesn't strike me as an exactly socially useful outcome) or push them to neighboring provinces, but I'm pretty skeptical that it'll have much of a substantial long-term effect on crime.
[1] If I were living there I'd also be immediately and deeply suspicious of any government mandate that requires the purchase of a device from a for-profit corporation, particularly when it only gives you the choice of three corporations, and one corporation makes 3/5 approved models. Seems like a recipe for corruption to me. But then again, I don't trust government further than I can throw it. (And an insurance company run by the government? Nightmare.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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.
Why is this front page news? Canadians have known for years that auto theft is high in Winterpeg, and there's really nothing wrong with the devices. The potential for state (as in govt) abuse is low since the RCMP has higher levels of accountability than their US counterparts. The only issue I can imagine anyone having with this is whether it's possible for a criminal to abuse.
How is this any different than requiring you to lock your car and not leave the keys in (which many insurers do)?
From the UK 'Home Office', "Since 1997, vehicle crime has fallen by 51%. Despite this, according to the British Crime Survey there were 1,731,000 vehicle crimes during 2005-06".
The downside is that if you have a high-value car, criminals now either break into your house to get the keys, or hijack you. My brother-in-law used to drive an Audi RS4, (with the BMW M5, the vehicle of choice for bank and smash and grab crimes). After the SECOND time he and his wife were threatened with knives and beaten, (in the centre of a major city each time), he replaced it with something rather more modest...
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.