The Government seemingly backs off on what looked like a pretty good anti-theft measure!
Regular readers will be familiar with my oft-used claim that the only changes to anything to do with cars and transport are industry driven. By that I mean that vested-interest groups and manufacturers, car retailers and the like, frequently lobby government and government departments (such as NZTA) to further their own interests. In most cases what is mooted has little, if anything to do with road safety. On the contrary, it is usually about furthering profits.
In early 2007 I recall a newspaper article promoting the use of an anti-car-theft device that utilised microdots carrying the vehicle’s VIN number to identify cars and the associated parts. In the event that the car was stolen, and broken down for parts, it would be impossible to remove or disguise all the microdots and therefore a stolen car and/or its parts could be recovered. Given that recent police statistics revealed that of just over 21,000 cars reported stolen, of which nearly 17,000 were never recovered, any device to reduce car theft would surely be snapped up?
More recently, another press release advocated the fitting of engine immobilisers, and went on to say that an immobiliser reduced the chances of your car being stolen. The downside to that is that over a few weeks, if the car is not used, the immobiliser can flatten the battery.
Whole of Vehicle Marking
In May this year, yet another newspaper stated that the government was not going to proceed with data-dotting, referred to as Whole of Vehicle Marking (WOVM) when it was tabled by the previous Labour government. Transport Minister, Steven Joyce, is reported as saying that the potential benefits of the scheme would be outweighed by the cost to motorists.
Mr Joyce said, “It is far more cost efficient to add security features at the point of manufacture, rather than as part of the importing process!” And, of course, therein lies the answer. Clearly the importers do not want to pay for the costs of micro-dotting each import lest it eat into their profits. But that argument does not hold water.
“Subarus sold in New Zealand, covered in micro-dots are preventing the criminal community from successfully stealing the cars!” According to Subaru NZ’s website. Approximately 7000 data dots are sprayed onto every new Subaru sold in NZ through an official Subaru dealer. They are not applied to second-hand, used import Subarus. Data dots have been applied to new Subarus in NZ since 2003, with reportedly corresponding reductions in the theft rates. While NZ Police statistics do not identify specific makes of cars, apparently in Australia there has been a 93 per cent reduction in Subaru thefts.
I would have thought those statistics would have been a good indication of the likely reductions in NZ, had the government run with the original proposal to make importers retro-fit micro-dot anti-theft identification. Apparently too, Australian Insurance companies have offered premium reductions of up to 18 per cent for vehicles which have been micro-dotted.
The Cat’s out of the Bag
What has not been debated is how one would identify stolen cars and parts, and what technology would be required, and where it would be located. Seems to me that only if the car or part is scanned at point of sale would it necessarily be identified as stolen. By way of comparison, we had our cat micro-chipped, having been persuaded by the vet that this would help its return if it ever wandered or was picked up by the SPCA.
Six hundred dollars later, as luck would have it our cat was stolen by a departing itinerant neighbour. Either it has never been taken to a vet during the three years it has been missing, or if it has, the vet has not bothered to scan it for a micro-chip. And even if it was, all the person in possession of it needs to say is, “I bought it!”
There is no checking process for authenticating a micro-chip. Thus unless there is a valid method for checking parts and cars that show micro-dotting (maybe at WoF time) I could see it not being 100 per cent viable. Again, are cars and parts stolen to order in NZ and shipped overseas, subject to checking when they arrive at their port of destination? I think not.
The interesting thing was that I was able to identify the sources of both newspaper articles — the companies promoting micro-dots and engine-immobilisers! I might have guessed.
What I haven’t established is who has now persuaded this present government to back off the idea. Seemingly new car importers are keen but used importers are not. Seems like anything that is proposed that would either add to the cost of a landed import or the importer’s mark-up is to be opposed. One only has to look at seat belts, frontal impact standards, the age restrictions on used imports, and now micro-dot technology, to work out whose interests are being looked after. Not ours for sure. If nearly 80 per cent of stolen cars in NZ are not recovered they would need to be replaced — get the picture?
Vested Interest
While I usually take a dim view of vested-interest groups pushing their own agendas, in this instance, I actually think that all cars should be micro-dotted upon arrival in the country, new and used, and if it costs a bit more, so what? All we need is a robust, incorruptible process for checking cars and parts as part of the WoF process.
We also need to beef up the borders both at entry and exit. Checking only 15 per cent of containers isn’t doing much to stop the export of stolen vehicles.
Write to the Transport Minister and ask him to have another, more in-depth look at the micro-dot technology. Insurance companies are doing their bit to increase the number of immobilisers.
