The City of Baltimore has repeatedly demonstrated that they will do anything besides try to change the behavior of the population. It's a failed city, and luckily the model is being exported to places like SF, LA, and DC.
Why should we punish people who repeatedly commit crime anyway? Fuck it, why do anything? Let's sue Kia instead, maybe we can get a payday
I've found that the people who complain most loudly about crime also tend to take great offense to the idea of government trying "to change the behavior of the population". It seems that this is viewed as an encroachment on freedoms.
You haven't seen much of the city, then. I live not far away, and functional cities do not have streets that look like what many of Baltimore's streets look like. And they don't have public schools were not a single student, out of hundreds, is meeting the minimum standards of proficiency
He's obviously not talking about the state of the road surface. Anybody who's spent much time in Baltimore, not just in the tourist areas, knows what I mean.
Then said commentator should obviously spend time writing with more clarity so their intended connotation is understood rather than using rhetoric that points to the state of the road surface. Anyone who's spent much time discussing and fixing real issues, rather than writing off whole cities as intractably broken, knows what I mean.
That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. I was there yesterday, my evidence is my experiences and memories. My judgement: not a failed city.
Do you have evidence to the contrary you feel is strong enough to prove your currently unproven claim?
As someone currently in Japan, still a bit shocked how it's actually possible to leave your bike unlocked in a major city and expect to see it the next day, I do find it rediculous to blame the manufacturer for crime. Like what's next, suing a lock manufacturer for being too easy to pick (you can literally look up how to pick 99% of locks on YouTube).
Everyone here keeps failing to mention the part where Kia didn’t care about the customers who complained, but instead extorted people out of another $500 to $1,000 to resolve the issue for them.
People have also failed to mention the part where insurers are dropping people with Kia Souls because they are too high risk.
Seemingly if you read deep enough in the features for the car, it would be described there. If they lied, that's another issue entirely.
It's totally fair for absolutely no one in the US to buy from KIA again. But if they were following the law by omitting ignition locking (maybe under some misguided notion that the US isn't as crime ridden as it is).
There's some countries and still some parts of the US where you could realistically leave the cars in the ignition for weeks and the car wouldn't be stolen. This is nothing but a symptom of a larger issue.
> Like what's next, suing a lock manufacturer for being too easy to pick (you can literally look up how to pick 99% of locks on YouTube).
This already happened almost 20 years ago in the United States. Ingersoll Rand was sued when it was shown that their Kryptonite locks could be opened with a Bic pen. Ingersoll Rand ended up settling. [0] I will grant that actual owners of the easily picked bike lock have obvious grounds to sue, whereas in the case of municipalities suing Hyundai due to theft problems, showing that the municipality is an injured party with standing to sue Hyundai isn’t as clear.
Not the police. It's a failure of the courts. Prosecutors are simply not charging or reducing charges for these offenders. The police routinely arrest the same people over and over again - including for gun charges! But the courts let them out.
Case in point. A couple of teens stole a car, smashed it into another car, killed a 6mo old and put his mother in the hospital. The charges? Trespassing.
I don't think you realize how easy it is to steal these cars. Look up a few videos. You rip off the plastic on the steering column, pry out the ignition cylinder and then use the A end of a usb cable to turn the exposed nub to start the car. Under 30 seconds. While there are other issues going on, this is gross negligence on Kia/Hyundai to not use an immobilizer.
It shouldn't really matter that theft is easy. If you're prepared to smash a window, you could steal from homes and businesses, not just cars. There should be a strong enough deterrent to make it uncommon.
You may not be able to stop desparate people from stealing, but if kids are repeatedly stealing cars for entertainment, then problem isn't the security of the cars.
Cars have been this easy to steal forever. Thieves generally take your car in under 30 seconds regardless. This particular vulnerability was just one of the first to get fully documented and distributed to everybody and popularized by an algorithm.
What I understand from this specific case these models don't have an engine immobilizer AND it's very easy to turn on the ignition using a USB cable. If I understood it correctly this is easier than stealing a car in the 80s, you don't even have to smash a window, it's that bad.
The United States is an exception to the rule being the only first world country that I know of to not mandate engine immobilizers (I'm sure someone will be able to point an exception, but overall these are mandatory in a lot of countries for decades already).
You need to access the vehicle (if you are good by opening the door with a lockpick or with some other non-damaging trick, otherwise breaking a window), then you force the ignition block, removing the lock cylinder, then you use something to turn the ignition on.
In the '80's you would have probably used a screwdriver, as what remained below the removed lock cylinder would have been a slot, on these particular models you could use a pair of thin nosed pliers but a USB A connector is coincidentally just the right size for the "tab" that has to be turned.
It's the government's fault for allowing criminals to run loose. It's their job to deal with criminals regardless of how capable the victims are to protect themselves.
When you see an Asian granny being beaten up you don't sue her for being so easy to beat up.
Sorry, just to get this clear, you are likening an argument over a manufacturer creating defective products with arguments that might come from a rapist's defense attorney?
If I buy a front door lock that has a systemic manufacturing problem and someone breaks into my house, I might want to sue the manufacturer.
But if someone breaks into my house--regardless of whether it was unlocked, the lock was defective, or they broke a window--and the police are negligent or incompetent in investigating or prosecuting the perpetrators, in what world is that a) not the police's fault? and b) an opportunity for the _police_ to sue the _manufacturer_?
If I start a cultural movement to get rid of front door locks and it gains traction, and then B&Es spike, can the police sue _me_ too?
If you make a lock that is recognizable and easily broken to the extent that B&Es double nationwide, I don't see a problem with cities suing you over it.
I don't know why you want to try and link the idea of a cultural movement? There's very clearly a difference between a defective product and a deliberate decision.
The argument isn't comparing the manufacturers liability, but that of the people choosing to steal the cars in the first place - why is it relevant how easy the cars are to steal?
I feel that this comment section is more a place for people to vent their feelings about crime freeform than an opportunity to actually consider the facts at hand.
If it were possible for two problems to exist at the same time, I'd say one problem is a product defect reducing the barrier of entry so low that car theft is accessible to bored teenagers.
But of course you are right, only one problem can ever exist and the problem is car thieves.
What in the sibling comment caused it to be flagged ‘dead’? Hyundai and Kia are Korean auto manufacturers. Is this product defect occurring there as well? If so, are car thefts increasing there as well?
They would first steal the keys, then the cars. That's actually more dangerous as it involves robbery or burglary. In a way it's better that the cars are easy to steal. Similarly, in bad areas some people leave their cars unlocked so that instead of breaking a window to rummage around inside, thieves can simply open the door.
If there were a bicycle manufacturer that knowingly made its bikes easier to steal and sell, AND those bicycles when stolen were linked to numerous horrific collisions resulting in death and major injury of innocent parties, then there might be a comparison.
Why should we punish people who repeatedly commit crime anyway? Fuck it, why do anything? Let's sue Kia instead, maybe we can get a payday