ICBC Unveils Plan to Battle Auto Theft

Friday, April 06, 2007 03:48 PM

ICBC has put together a plan aimed at reducing auto theft in the Prince George area. Prince George and Victoria were the only two communities to see increased auto theft last year.

In Prince George, the increase was 34% over the number of vehicles stolen in 2005.

ICBC’s Loss Prevention Coordinator, Christine Silver, says the plan is to have special events throughout the year to focus on different aspects of auto crime:

April: Link with bus and cab drivers ask that they report suspicious activity to police
May: Tour a stolen Vehicle
June Citizens on Patrol event to thank Citizens on Patrol for their efforts
July mail out campaign letting peole know which vehicles are most often stolen
August Bait vehicle
September, portrait of a thief letting people know who steals and why
October Tips on loss prevention
November, Screening of the video Stolen Lives
December education on how to prevent theft of items from vehicle.

Watch for stickers in cars that read "Bait vehicles are everywhere". Steering wheel locks are a deterent, but in order to get a reduction in ICBC rates, your vehicle would have to have a passive immobiizer. "Certainly a steering wheel lock is a good deterent," says Silver, "It will make a thief move to the vehicle next over because that wheel lock just adds a little more time and makes your vehicle more difficult to steal."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 03:48 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Harbinger on April 6 2007 4:29 PM

How about a special event wherein the convicted car thief gets punished enough and has to spend more time in jail? So he can learn to be a better criminal, move up the food chain in crime, and stop stealing cars. Oh, by the way, I'd like to thank the courts, the RCMP and ICBC for continuing to blame the victim. Seems to work for every one except the victims of this crime. What a joke.

Posted by: lunarguy on April 6 2007 4:48 PM

I totally agree with you except I don't blame the RCMP but rather the court system. I know they are over worked but that is because at present it is nothing more than a merry go round. Forget these conditional sentences and just jail them for two years less a day. Then if they do re-offend and get caught at least we know they will be gone for two years and not just back breaking into our vehicles the next night.

Posted by: owl on April 6 2007 5:30 PM

"July mail out campaign letting peole know which vehicles are most often stolen"

Mid July - Mail out campaign to manufacturers of vehicles which are most often stolen to design and install a system into new cars which will be a major deterrent to stealing.

Posted by: diplomat on April 6 2007 5:37 PM

"...but in order to get a reduction in ICBC rates, your vehicle would have to have a passive immobilizer."

Perhaps an inventor can come up with a *passive immobilizer" for repeat car thieves?

Just an idea.

Posted by: Chester on April 6 2007 6:04 PM

Amazing program. None of it is directed at the thieves. How about some serious treatment when caught? How about public humiliation? How about community work? How about some justice?

I can buy a car that is less desirable to steal. I can put locks on the steering wheel. I can lock my vehicle up in a secured, video monitored compound with armed guards 24/7. Or, I can purchase a high priced alarm system. Or? Or? Or? Where does it end?

It doesn't matter what lengths I go to, a thief is still a thief and he or she will steal someone elses car who can't affort all of the security. Sorry, this is not the solution. It may reduce claims for ICBC, but does nothing to address the problem. Chester

Posted by: charles on April 6 2007 6:57 PM

I would say if you have lived in Prince George (or anywhere else in Canada for that matter) you are awful lucky if you have not had either your vehicle stolen or your home broken into.

Posted by: charles on April 6 2007 7:04 PM

Sorry my post was incomplete. It should have said:

I would say if you have lived in Prince George (or anywhere else in Canada for that matter) for the last 20 years, you are awful lucky if you have not had either your vehicle stolen or your home broken into.

Posted by: Palopu on April 6 2007 9:04 PM

The latest idea that is coming out, is that people will have to prepay for their gas at all service stations. This will apparenlty stop the gas and run theives, and will be a safety feature for people working in service stations. Problem is, if the crooks cannot steal gas from the Service station they will begin to look elsewhere for it. Hmmmmm, I wonder where they will find it, perhaps in someones driveway???. Or will they steal money to buy gas.?

This is another example where 99.9% of the driving population will be inconvenienced to accomadate the .01% of the population that are theives. This seems to be the Government solution to all problems, and the cost of these solutions are always downloaded onto the law abiding individual taxpayers.

Posted by: owl on April 6 2007 11:19 PM

I think we are overlooking the loss of what used to be common freedoms as a result of attacks on the home front in a foreign country to the south. Prior to that it was plane highjackers and bombers who caused the initial level of airport security to be put in place. Now BC ferries is instituting a similar program, which includes random checks of cars, etc. at a cost of delay, rebuilding facilities and cost of ferry tickets. And then there is the strengthening of the supposedly longest undefended border in the world. That is no longer true. I think European countries may hold the title to that were the borders are no different than passing from one province to another.

So, the best offense against potential criminals is a strong defense?

Or the best defense is a strong offense? Attack the criminal before they commit the crime. There has been a lot of serious thinking about that approach. The thinking goes: �If you fit the pattern, we will lock you in jail before you commit the crime which, based on your habits and your brown eyes and bushy eyebrows and shoulder tattoo, you likely will.�

Maybe one should just buy a leather jacket, put a Hells Angels insignia on the back, and leave it in the front seat so that the insignia is easily visible.

Posted by: Gofaster on April 7 2007 6:45 AM

how about if people kept their keys in their pockets,
keep the vehilce locked,
Install immobilizers...
and not leave the vehicle running in the parking lot, with no one inside it, at their favorite beverage outlet.
That would solve a lot of the vehilce thefts....
no not all but an awful lot..
If owners are lax, the thief will take advantage of that!

Posted by: Mcfly on April 7 2007 7:38 AM

Educate the public sure on stupid stuff that some do like Gofaster listed.
But more so IMO force the automakers to make it standard on all cars engine immobilizers.
And I like their bait car idea, so lots more of them around for stupid thieves to get caught in.
But in the end the punishment has to deter.
I would be all for say the cutting off of the right hand of any convicted thief...after they do 5 years hard labour first that is.

Posted by: diplomat on April 7 2007 7:54 AM

ICBC does not mention the idea of automatically refusing to issue insurance and a driver license to a person who gets convicted of vehicle theft.

5 years for the first time, ten years for the next time, etc.

Jail time if caught driving without a license and insurance.

Posted by: owl on April 7 2007 11:16 AM

Good lord .... that means we will have a bunch of stolen cars being driven to the chopshop by unlicensed people ....

Posted by: Gofaster on April 7 2007 2:08 PM

You could be closer to the truth than an one of us would like to admit to owl.

Posted by: Mcfly on April 7 2007 4:44 PM

I agree with owl one this one.
Anyone willing to be low and slimy enough to steal a car, is surely not going to care about a little law like having a drivers lic.

Posted by: thereasonableman on April 7 2007 6:24 PM

In another story, ICBC's next move is to encourage you to sleep in your car with a cell phone. If you harm the would-be thief in any way, however, you will be arrested and charged with assault.

Some food for thought:

In Australia:

- Fine for speeding, $900 each offence, nobody speeds

- Penalty for driving while impaired, lifetime driving prohibition, 1st offence, nobody drinks and drives

In Canada:

- Your car gets stolen, it's all your fault, smarten up

If any government agency wants to accomplish anything, they first need to see a proctologist to have their head removed. At this point in time, however, they only want the press coverage and the appearance that they are doing something productive. That's exactly what they are accomplishing.

Posted by: thereasonableman on April 7 2007 6:25 PM

BTW, if that's a battle plan, I'd suggest retreating.

Posted by: owl on April 7 2007 7:18 PM

Here is a current site which has fines and points from the State of Western Australia

http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Services/Traffic.asp?Infringements

It tells a bit of a different story. I find it interesting to see that they have a two tier system � light vehicles and heavy vehicles.

I think when you look at the fines and the points, the BC system is either on par or stricter than Western Australia.

I am not going to bother to look up the other states. Maybe you can post the web site which backs up the info you provided, TRM.

Posted by: owl on April 7 2007 7:26 PM

Just a page on the net, so no way of telling how close to reality this is other than checking each one out.

Russia seems to be the place where licenses are revoked for life. But then I think they may still have a good bribery system in place.

;-)

The Scandinavian countries have been tough on drinking and driving for some time. I do not think hard labour in jail exists anywhere in North America. The again, that is all relative. They may have to do hard labour, but they may also be protected reasonably well from fellow inmates putting a blade between their ribs.

http://webpages.charter.net/ricknet/duilaws.htm

Posted by: owl on April 7 2007 7:36 PM

http://www.colorado-dui.com/states/AUS.html

This seems to be a relatively reliable source for info on Australia and DUI
Notice that it states at the bottom
�0.15% & over - under the influence of alcohol (i.e. drunk). This has serious consequences especially if you are apprehended 3 times in 5 years (you must go to prison).

I suppose it is possible to get caught a second and third time if the license has been revoked on the first time. Then one would also be faced with a driving without a license charge on the second time �. And then would be on the road again??? Not too strict from my point of view. Seems that jail is only likely after the third time, not the second time.

The internet is so full of information. Please let me know if there is a more reliable site which refutes this one.

Posted by: owl on April 7 2007 7:38 PM

If no one drinks and drives, how would one get caught drinking and driving a first time?

A second time?

A third time?

*scratching head*, with look of curiosity on face.

Posted by: owl on April 7 2007 7:49 PM

Some limits of BAC by country ...

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/drunk%20driving/artcl--drunk-driving-0005--global-BAC-limits.htm

Notice that Australia is in with most of Europe. .05%

Notice that the key 3 Asian countries are .03%

Notice that Sweden, Finland and Norway are .02% ... that is a full 4 times lower than Canada and the USA.