MPI’s immobilizer program is justifiable

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/07/2007 (6628 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

THE Free Press has described MPI’s mandatory immobilizer program as an offensive abuse of power. I would argue that if we consider criteria to judge the need for intrusive measures, the program is justifiable.

Safety and health legislation that imposes obligations is not new. Examples include banning smoking in bars and seatbelt laws and writing fire codes that require alarm and sprinkler systems be installed in older buildings at the owner’s expense.

The question is not whether the state can restrict our freedoms, but how much and under what circumstances. Certainly, not all measures that governments might impose are justifiable. Thus we can smoke, drive while using cellphones, and skydive despite the dangers.

How can we decide when it is legitimate for the state to protect its citizens by imposing mandatory regulations? I propose six criteria against which we can judge the immobilizer program.

First, is the problem significant enough to justify intrusive measures? Winnipeg has the highest rate of auto theft in North America and Winnipeggers know that death and injury are inevitable when large numbers of young people, many of them under the influence of drugs and alcohol, are driving around the streets at high speeds.

Second, have other solutions been tried or is the problem just being dumped on the public? The auto theft program has operated for five years. There have been temporary successes, but when rates spiked to 1,132 cars stolen in November 2004, it became obvious that a more intensive effort was needed. The Winnipeg Auto-Theft Suppression Strategy was launched in August of 2005. One of the largest crime prevention programs in Canada, it is comprehensive, beginning with educational programs for children in high-risk areas and extending to intensive supervision, soon to include electronic monitoring, for serious offenders.

Third, have all the other responsible parties contributed to the solution? In this case they have. Manitoba Justice and Manitoba Public Insurance have led the way. In addition to the Stolen Auto Unit, funded by MPI and Manitoba Justice, the Winnipeg Police Service has appointed auto-theft representatives in each district and will apply CrimeStat to auto theft. The federal government will fund $1.5 million of youth intervention programs and new federal regulations will make immobilizers mandatory on all new vehicles. The city has funded an automated licence plate recognition system, which will soon be operational.

Fourth, is the solution imposed likely to reduce the problem? The evidence on this is clear. Immobilizers that meet Insurance Bureau of Canada standards are effective. None of the 66,000 immobilizers installed under the voluntary MPI program has been defeated by a thief.

Fifth, must citizens bear a significant financial burden? The immobilizer and installation are free and the customer receives a premium reduction of $40 per year as long as they own the car. I don’t know of any other jurisdiction that provides customers with this level of financial incentive for protecting their vehicles.

Sixth, is the public unduly inconvenienced? People must take their vehicles to an immobilizer installer. MPI will make the appointment and many installers will drive the customer home or to work during the installation. What about immobilizer failure? MPI has received complaints about 1.4 per cent of immobilizer installations. An immobilizer quality care group has been created to deal with complaints. This rate should decline as installers gain more experience. The current rate, however, implies that about 650 of the 47,000 owners will have a problem.

But without the program, many more Winnipeggers will be inconvenienced. In 2006, Winnipeg had 7,722 auto thefts and 50 per cent of these involved the most at-risk vehicles. If we assume a life expectancy of four years for these vehicles, we can predict that more than 15,000 of the 47,000 most at-risk vehicles would be stolen. Preventing 15,000 thefts means that fewer Winnipeggers will be killed or injured by auto thieves and all will benefit from reduced insurance premiums.

Some feel the immobilizer program blames the victim and believe they should be allowed to put their vehicles at risk if they wish. However, for many of us working on auto theft, the real victims are not those who have their cars stolen, but those who are killed or maimed by people driving stolen cars. If auto theft was a simple property crime, I don’t think that a mandatory program would be justified — the problem could be dealt with through risk-based premiums.

Rick Linden is a professor of sociology at the University of Manitoba. He is a member of the Manitoba Auto Theft Task Force and is the president of the Vehicle Security Installation Bureau.