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.
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.
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.