Difference between revisions of "Security issue: Vehicle theft"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| Car park near stores or manufacturing premises || Increases likelihood of being selected target || Retailing and manufacturing premises have a much greater chance of falling victim to vehicle crime than domestic premises<ref>Mirrlees-Black Curiona and Ross Alec, ''Crime against retail and manufacturing premises: findings from the 1994 Commercial Victimisation Survey'', Home Office Research Study 146, copyright 1995, ISBN 1 85893 554 7</ref>. |
| Car park near stores or manufacturing premises || Increases likelihood of being selected target || Retailing and manufacturing premises have a much greater chance of falling victim to vehicle crime than domestic premises<ref>Mirrlees-Black Curiona and Ross Alec, ''Crime against retail and manufacturing premises: findings from the 1994 Commercial Victimisation Survey'', Home Office Research Study 146, copyright 1995, ISBN 1 85893 554 7</ref>. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| − | | Lack of surveillance. || Decreases risk of detection. || A low level of surveillance, particularly round-the-clock surveillance, decreases the perceived risk of detection for a perpetrator and thereby increases the attractiveness. |
+ | | Lack of surveillance. || Decreases risk of detection. || A low level of surveillance, particularly round-the-clock surveillance, decreases the perceived risk of detection for a perpetrator and thereby increases the attractiveness. For cars parked along the street, a high level of natural surveillance can significantly reduce the attractiveness of such cars for thieves. |
|- |
|- |
||
| Large, publicly accessible parkings || increases attractiveness || Larger parking facilities generally have higher theft |
| Large, publicly accessible parkings || increases attractiveness || Larger parking facilities generally have higher theft |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| Home street||117 |
| Home street||117 |
||
|} |
|} |
||
| + | |- |
||
| + | | Large amounts of passing traffic || Increases visibility of target || A large amount of traffic passing the vehicle means a large exposure to potential car thieves<ref name="residentialcartheft"/>. |
||
| + | |- |
||
| + | | Multiple exits from the area || Decreases likelihood of apprehension || A car thief wants to have a fast exit route once the theft is done or he is discovered. Multiple exits increase the chance of a clean getaway<ref name="residentialcartheft"/>. |
||
|} |
|} |
||
| Line 45: | Line 49: | ||
* [[valuables|attractiveness of vehicles or items in vehicles]] |
* [[valuables|attractiveness of vehicles or items in vehicles]] |
||
| − | * proximity to known area with car theft |
||
== Impacts == |
== Impacts == |
||
Revision as of 12:52, 6 March 2013
Vehicle theft is the crime of theft, or attempt of theft of or from a motor vehicle (automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle, etc.).
Contents
Description
This category includes both theft of and from vehicles, because the measures against it would be very alike from the viewpoint of an urban planner.
This category does not include: carjacking/joyriding, theft with access to keys, fraudulent theft, or opportunistic theft
Contributing circumstances
Known circumstances to influence the likelihood or effect of robbery are presented in the table below:
| Contributing Circumstance | Influence | Description | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Car park near stores or manufacturing premises | Increases likelihood of being selected target | Retailing and manufacturing premises have a much greater chance of falling victim to vehicle crime than domestic premises[1]. | ||||||||
| Lack of surveillance. | Decreases risk of detection. | A low level of surveillance, particularly round-the-clock surveillance, decreases the perceived risk of detection for a perpetrator and thereby increases the attractiveness. For cars parked along the street, a high level of natural surveillance can significantly reduce the attractiveness of such cars for thieves. | ||||||||
| Large, publicly accessible parkings | increases attractiveness | Larger parking facilities generally have higher theft
rates than smaller facilities do.[2] This may be due to the fact that it is easier for thieves to find attractive targets here. | ||||||||
| High levels of vehicle theft in the vicinity. | Increases likelihood of targeting. | Car thieves select targets typically several miles from their place of residence[3] | ||||||||
| High levels of unemployment | Increases likelihood of targetting | High levels of unemployment are correlated with higher levels of property crime [4]. | ||||||||
| High expected levels of drug- or alcohol abuse | Reduces inhibitions for crime | The presence of regular abusers of alcohol or drugs has a strong correlation with the occurrence of robbery, often thought to be caused by the need for financing an addiction. Studies show that about 35% of all robbery is committed under the influence of alcohol[5]. | ||||||||
| Vehicles parked along road in residential area | Increases vulnerability | Studies have shown that cars parked along the street have a significantly larger risk of being stolen than vehicles parked in a garage or a car port.
| ||||||||
| Large amounts of passing traffic | Increases visibility of target | A large amount of traffic passing the vehicle means a large exposure to potential car thieves[6]. | ||||||||
| Multiple exits from the area | Decreases likelihood of apprehension | A car thief wants to have a fast exit route once the theft is done or he is discovered. Multiple exits increase the chance of a clean getaway[6]. |
Impacts
Social impact
Economic impact
In terms of economic impact, the costs of vehicle theft, the parties on whom those costs fall, possible secondary economic impact, and a cost-effectiveness analysis of prevention measures should be assessed.
Although vehicle theft is not as intrusive as violent crime, it is both quite common and costly for society.[7] The direct costs of vehicle theft are for about 16% attributable to costs in anticipation of vehicle theft (e.g. anti-vehicle theft measures and insurance administration). Although this is considerable, the major part (almost 80% of the costs of vehicle theft are attributable to the consequence of vehicle theft, e.g. the value of the stolen vehicles (±45%), physical and emotional impact on victims (±15%), the costs of property recovered (±10%). The remaining 4% can be attributed to the costs in response of crime by the public authorities (policing and the criminal justice system)[8]. The average cost per event is with £4,000 (2003 prices), slightly higher than the average costs of a burglary[9]. This is mostly the result of higher preventive expenditures and the average value of the stolen vehicle and recovered vehicles.
Vehicle theft does not just create direct costs, but also creates secondary economic effects on society-at-large. First of all, victims of vehicle theft have to deal with opportunity costs as a result of the necessary administrative activities and a temporary unavailability of their vehicle (including companies who own transport vans or trucks), which could lead to a reduction in working time hours.[10] Secondly, there is the opportunity costs of police and other public services. On top of that, there will be some very minor effects for the market for vehicles since there will be more demand for new vehicles and more supply of second-hand vehicles. In total, however, the secondary economic effects of vehicle theft are not that significant in comparison to for instance burglary of a dwelling. Theft from a vehicle that leaves broken glass, on the other hand, can have more negative effects on the neighbourhood since it negatively influences the perception of security for people living in the neighbourhood.
Security measures mitigate the economic costs of vehicle theft, but also demand investment in time and money (which are quite significant compared to other types of property crime such as burglary). In general, though, standard anti-vehicle theft measures make sense from a social-economic point of view[11]. Note, however, that since most victims are insured for vehicle theft, some experts argue that there should be "government-mandated standards" of security applied to all vehicles because an individual incentive is lacking[12]. One has to bear in mind, however, that vehicle thieves will adapt quickly to preventive security measures in accordance with the the economics of criminal behaviour, including how to deal with immobilisers and VIN numbers[13].
Mobility impact
Vehicle theft is more likely to occur in areas where the thief is well-known in order to be able to flee quickly. Therefore, as for robbery, the risk will be reduced when there are few fleeing possibilities and when accessibility of the area is bad.
The police can chase a vehicle thief by car or even by helicopter. A helicopter has a better overview of the streetmap and of the person fleeing and can see and go everywhere and give instructions to the police in the car on the ground
An anti-theft gps tracking device can be placed in a car in order to locate the car after robbery.
[Something about license plate changing after a car is stolen, detect if a car is stolen from the license plate or from the car inscription??]
safety impact
Measures
- surveillance
- reaction force
- target hardening
- access control (parkings)
- deflecting offenders
- Education (don't leave valuables in car)
Footnotes and references
- ↑ Mirrlees-Black Curiona and Ross Alec, Crime against retail and manufacturing premises: findings from the 1994 Commercial Victimisation Survey, Home Office Research Study 146, copyright 1995, ISBN 1 85893 554 7
- ↑ Clarke Ronald V., Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities, Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series, Guide No. 10
- ↑ Keister Todd, Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways, Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Guide No. 46, February 2007
- ↑ Kepple NJ, Freisthler B., Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries.,J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Jul;73(4):523-30
- ↑ Greenfeld, Lawrence A, Alcohol and crime, an analysis of national data on the prevalence of alcohol involvement in crime, U,.S. Department of Justice, Office of justice Programs, April 5-7 1998, Washington D.C.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedresidentialcartheft - ↑ In 2006, about one million vehicles got stolen in both the United States and in the European Union. Source: Barham, J. (2011). Europe’s Car Thieves Go Upscale. Security management.
- ↑ Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (2005). The economic and social costs of crime against individuals and households 2003/04.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ See, S. Field. Crime Prevention and the Costs of Auto Theft: An economic analysis. Home Office Research and Planning Unit.
- ↑ Ibid
- ↑ Ibid
- ↑ http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/europes-car-thieves-go-upscale
