A Small Price To Pay
Sep 13, 2007
At the beginning of September, Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) introduced a mandatory program that requires owners of vehicles deemed to be at a high risk of being stolen to have immobilizers installed. Owners of vehicles in this category that do not have immobilizers by the beginning of this month will be denied auto insurance.
This move comes after a sustained MPI public education campaign that pointed out the benefits of immobilizers in deterring auto theft. They also offered owners incentives to have them installed, and even went so far as to make them free for owners with vehicles on the “high-risk” list. Two years later, progress has been made, but we all realize that auto-theft remains a serious problem in Winnipeg.
Certainly, the primary means of addressing auto theft is to direct attention to those thieves that commit the crimes. And some of this has been done. Sure, there is still work to do in curtailing the rate of auto theft and finding ways to deter those most likely to commit these types of crimes. This is the justice piece of the issue. But there is more to it than that, and there are other ways to help attack the problem.
But there also comes a time where the individual and community must take some of the initiative in helping to stop vehicle theft. It is not especially onerous for one to have to install a free or inexpensive device that will prevent their vehicle from being stolen. That becomes one less vehicle that can be damaged or, worse, involved in an accident that could cause serious injury or death. Less stolen cars means safer streets and lower insurance costs, there is nothing to debate there.
But the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, apparently with no real issues of substance to attack of late, has decided that mandating that citizens take minor steps to assist in fighting a serious problem is “a violation of our fundamental freedoms.” They’ve gone so far as to introduce a petition on their website asking that the Manitoba Legislature “overturn the decision by MPI to force vehicle owners to install immobilizers into their vehicles.” They trot out a few unproven reasons for their opposition, but basically this is another “thin edge of the wedge” argument – if the government makes us wear seatbelts or install immobilizers today, what draconian measures will they foist upon us tomorrow?
According to MPI, evidence indicates that not a single vehicle that has an immobilizer has been stolen. If this is the case, think of the potential savings in terms of lives and, to a much less significant degree, costs. Can one really argue that the cost of this, which is a minor inconvenience at most, is one that is too great to bear?
Comments
Comments are now closed
Five years ago my vehicle was stolen. It was not a nice experience. Two years ago, I had an immobilizer installed, for no cost (and received a rebate on my insurance) and have had peace of mind ever since. I dropped off my vehicle on the way to work; MPI drove me to work, installed the immobilizer and picked me up after work to get my vehicle. (My elderly parents also had an immobilizer installed in their vehicle and it definitely gives them peace of mind.) I have not had any mechanical or any other trouble with the immobilizer and now do not have to use my club every time I stop for milk! My only regret is that innocent victims have to take these precautions in our community against thieves out there who have no respect, or integrity for, or in society
Deb N. - 2007-09-13 22:22
I think it’s about time that someone took affirmative action against these thieves. MPI has angered many people, but the public needs to realize it’s for their own good. Their vehicles have a high risk of being stolen and that makes their vehicle unsafe. How many more people need to be seriously injured or killed before vehicle owners start taking this issue seriously? From the insurer’s perspective, they are trying to keep claims costs down.
APE - 2007-09-14 11:51
I have an automatic car start and was told that not only would the instalation of the "immobilizer" cost me $60 but that the added electrical devoce could end up giving me serious problems in the future. And as for the idea that the car is one preferred by thieves...that's malarky...I got a letter on my old 1987 truck that is so rusty it would never get stolen. Clamp down harder on the thieves! Make "jail" a place to fear, not a holiday!
Violet - 2007-09-14 18:53
Sure you can't steal a car with an immobolizer, but the thieves are damaging 10 cars now to steal one.....and who is stuck with the deductable ? Heck , someone smashed my window last year, and I didn't bother to claim it, I just spend $125 on a used piece of glass and did it myself. The car theft issue goes beyond kids stealing cars.....we just have to look at our racist , horrible child welfare system to see where these little car thieves are falling through the cracks. If I hear that these immobolizers are free one more time, I will rip my hair out. They are paid by our premiums.....and if you think MPI loves giving you a rebate each year, think again......they are forced to , and they fight it tooth and nail each year. The government can do more to keep thieves in jail, instead of Manitoba Justice letting them out on bail over and over ( only to kill someone ) , and people can do more to protect their car. It's $40, and it's called a club. They won't even try and break your window to steal it. No one has ever stolen a car with a club on either. It would be cheaper than immobilizers.
JimCotton - 2007-09-16 16:50
I don't have an issue with the idea behind the immobilizers. I do however have an issue with MPI not taking any responsibility for anything that goes wrong with your vehicle in the future due to the installation of the immobilizer. If it's going to be mandatory, then at the very least MPI should have to be held responsible. http://www.petitiononline.com/imob/petition.html
Blondie - 2007-09-18 11:01