5 ms·

> you can get a ticket for leaving your car door unlocked What is the reasoning behind that law? I know plenty of people who live in areas where they don't loc

> you can get a ticket for leaving your car door unlocked What is the reasoning behind that law? I know plenty of people who live in areas where they don't lock their house because they believe it's safe enough not to have to lock it. And besides, anyone who really wanted in could bust the door down or break a window. Same with cars. I've had my car broken into 5 times in LA/SF. They busted the window each time. Not locking would have solved nothing although maybe it would have saved me having to pay to get the window replaced. Ideally if the law is about preventing crime it seems like they should actually try preventing the crimes rather than tell citizens to change their lives. Here in Japan pull out car stereos are not a thing and they have large car stereos that are not available in the USA. They are not available in the USA because they're too large to carry and would get stolen. I'd prefer to live in a society that protects it's people's lifestyles than one which tells them "that's the way the world is, lock your stuff up" Not sure that made any sense. There's plenty of things you can do in Japan you can't do other places because the crime level is high in those other places. The attitude of those other places is "crime exists, there's nothing to be done about it, so suck it up". Living somewhere where the crime doesn't exist (or is low enough to ignore it) opened my eyes that I was in a a bubble of "crime is the way things are". Now I see that no, it's the way we let them be. I'm sure it's more complicated than that.

close04 8y ago
The idea is that you are costing the police valuable resources for something you could have easily avoided by locking the car. Many countries have such laws. You have to take the proper precautions or face a fine. An open door is seen as an invitation even for a thief that normally wouldn’t risk breaking a window. Basically for crimes of opportunity. And this applies to houses, cars, etc. Insurance companies will see it the same way.
- Gpetrium 8y ago
  Not only will it cost the police more, but it also costs the car insurance and by proxy everyone that is insured. If 100 people leave the car unlocked and are robbed and on average the car costs $30,000, this will cost $3,000,000 + insurance resource + customer hassle + police resources + judicial resources. That is a steep cost to all parties. (Dis)incentives are more successful when it considers all actors.
  - codefined 8y ago
    'Smashing a window' is unlikely to incur costs of $30,000, perhaps $300 is a better estimate. I would also argue that insurance resources, customer hassle, police resources and judicial resources are also all roughly equal for handling stolen items from a car, versus stolen items from a car + window broken.
    - close04 8y ago
      You’re ignoring the fact that an unlocked door greatly increases the chance of the crime happening in the first place. It won’t cost more but it will make it happen more times. Many opportunistic thieves will simply try the door and only go in if it opens.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    In what world does a broken window total a car? While we're at it, in what world does your insurance premium not increase drastically after you collect on a claim? Your math is incredible flawed?
    - Gpetrium 8y ago
      My example implies that some cars will be broken into for items that are in it while other cars will be taken by the assailant, the $30,000 example is for visual purposes. Do you expect all cars that are left open or broken into, to be just for a 'car stereo'? Do you expect all assailants to go to court and incurring the judicial cost I listed? "As an example, while a simple automobile case may resolve quickly after case initiation and incur less than $10,000 in fees, the total costs of such a case can also exceed $100,000 per side if the case goes to trial." - IAALS.Du.EDU
- tokyodude 8y ago
  I'm sorry to put it this way but I don't know how else to convey it but ... I feel like you might be living in a bubble and can't imagine a world outside the bubble in the following way. In Japan if you go to a coffee shop like Starbucks which might be 3 stories tall (each floor rather small though), the norm is you go first see if there is a seat available. If there is you leave your stuff there. By stuff I mean your $1k-$3k notebook, or you phone, I've even seen people leave their wallet and just take $10 out (equiv). You then go to the floor where you can order and order your stuff, wait for your order, then go back to the place you reserved and your items are still there. AFAICT you think that's wrong because you live in a world where that stuff would be stolen and it's therefore your responsibility to make sure it's not stolen. I live in a world where I don't worry about it being stolen. This has lots of advantages. One I can reserve a seat. Another I can use the toilet without giving up my seat and without worrying about my stuff being stolen. I can leave stuff in my car from car stereos to cameras to whatever. I'd prefer to live in my world. To put it in modern terms, in your world the terrorist have won. They've managed to remove your freedoms and you're so deep in you can't imagine it could be any other way. I stepped out of that bubble. Now I see the places where I have to guard my stuff as 3rd world (in that particular area, Japan has plenty of other issues). I don't know how to do it but I want to find a way to encourage people not to let the terrorists/thieves win. I don't want our daily lives where instead of just enjoying our lives with each other we have to be on constant guard for the bad guys and the things they might do. The problem is most places are so used to theft they can't imagine a society without so much of it that they always have to be on guard. So they don't press to make their place better. They just assume it's as good as it gets already. Well, it's not.
  - close04 8y ago
    > I live in a world [...] > My world [...] > There's plenty of things you can do in Japan you can't do other places because [...] That’s you. How about that bubble... I guess in “your world” there are no locks on cars and houses. No need you say, right? But the OP was talking about Montreal. And my answer applies basically to all western world. It’s literally in the law of most of those countries and it makes sense. You don’t need to agree with it but rejecting my explanation will not make it any less accurate and true to the reality of far more than “my bubble”. P.S. If you don’t want to let the thieves/terrorists in just lock the doors like I suggested.
Cyphase 8y ago
> I've had my car broken into 5 times in LA/SF. They busted the window each time. Not locking would have solved nothing although maybe it would have saved me having to pay to get the window replaced. Tangential story: I know someone who used to have a soft-top convertible. He would purposefully leave it unlocked because he didn't want someone to tear open the top to get in, which they could very easily do. Someone still tore it open one time to get some change out of the center console.

close04 8y ago

The idea is that you are costing the police valuable resources for something you could have easily avoided by locking the car. Many countries have such laws. You have to take the proper precautions or face a fine. An open door is seen as an invitation even for a thief that normally wouldn’t risk breaking a window. Basically for crimes of opportunity. And this applies to houses, cars, etc. Insurance companies will see it the same way.

Gpetrium 8y ago
Not only will it cost the police more, but it also costs the car insurance and by proxy everyone that is insured. If 100 people leave the car unlocked and are robbed and on average the car costs $30,000, this will cost $3,000,000 + insurance resource + customer hassle + police resources + judicial resources. That is a steep cost to all parties. (Dis)incentives are more successful when it considers all actors.
- codefined 8y ago
  'Smashing a window' is unlikely to incur costs of $30,000, perhaps $300 is a better estimate. I would also argue that insurance resources, customer hassle, police resources and judicial resources are also all roughly equal for handling stolen items from a car, versus stolen items from a car + window broken.
  - close04 8y ago
    You’re ignoring the fact that an unlocked door greatly increases the chance of the crime happening in the first place. It won’t cost more but it will make it happen more times. Many opportunistic thieves will simply try the door and only go in if it opens.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  In what world does a broken window total a car? While we're at it, in what world does your insurance premium not increase drastically after you collect on a claim? Your math is incredible flawed?
  - Gpetrium 8y ago
    My example implies that some cars will be broken into for items that are in it while other cars will be taken by the assailant, the $30,000 example is for visual purposes. Do you expect all cars that are left open or broken into, to be just for a 'car stereo'? Do you expect all assailants to go to court and incurring the judicial cost I listed? "As an example, while a simple automobile case may resolve quickly after case initiation and incur less than $10,000 in fees, the total costs of such a case can also exceed $100,000 per side if the case goes to trial." - IAALS.Du.EDU
tokyodude 8y ago
I'm sorry to put it this way but I don't know how else to convey it but ... I feel like you might be living in a bubble and can't imagine a world outside the bubble in the following way. In Japan if you go to a coffee shop like Starbucks which might be 3 stories tall (each floor rather small though), the norm is you go first see if there is a seat available. If there is you leave your stuff there. By stuff I mean your $1k-$3k notebook, or you phone, I've even seen people leave their wallet and just take $10 out (equiv). You then go to the floor where you can order and order your stuff, wait for your order, then go back to the place you reserved and your items are still there. AFAICT you think that's wrong because you live in a world where that stuff would be stolen and it's therefore your responsibility to make sure it's not stolen. I live in a world where I don't worry about it being stolen. This has lots of advantages. One I can reserve a seat. Another I can use the toilet without giving up my seat and without worrying about my stuff being stolen. I can leave stuff in my car from car stereos to cameras to whatever. I'd prefer to live in my world. To put it in modern terms, in your world the terrorist have won. They've managed to remove your freedoms and you're so deep in you can't imagine it could be any other way. I stepped out of that bubble. Now I see the places where I have to guard my stuff as 3rd world (in that particular area, Japan has plenty of other issues). I don't know how to do it but I want to find a way to encourage people not to let the terrorists/thieves win. I don't want our daily lives where instead of just enjoying our lives with each other we have to be on constant guard for the bad guys and the things they might do. The problem is most places are so used to theft they can't imagine a society without so much of it that they always have to be on guard. So they don't press to make their place better. They just assume it's as good as it gets already. Well, it's not.
- close04 8y ago
  > I live in a world [...] > My world [...] > There's plenty of things you can do in Japan you can't do other places because [...] That’s you. How about that bubble... I guess in “your world” there are no locks on cars and houses. No need you say, right? But the OP was talking about Montreal. And my answer applies basically to all western world. It’s literally in the law of most of those countries and it makes sense. You don’t need to agree with it but rejecting my explanation will not make it any less accurate and true to the reality of far more than “my bubble”. P.S. If you don’t want to let the thieves/terrorists in just lock the doors like I suggested.

Cyphase 8y ago

> I've had my car broken into 5 times in LA/SF. They busted the window each time. Not locking would have solved nothing although maybe it would have saved me having to pay to get the window replaced. Tangential story: I know someone who used to have a soft-top convertible. He would purposefully leave it unlocked because he didn't want someone to tear open the top to get in, which they could very easily do. Someone still tore it open one time to get some change out of the center console.