Immobilizers to be made mandatory in Canada
As of September 1st, all new cars, vans, light trucks and SUVs sold in Canada will have to be fitted with anti-theft electronic immobilizers as mandated by Transport Canada. Most carmakers have announced plans to equip their 2008 model vehicles in Canada with immobilizers as standard equipment, and the move has been widely applauded by Insurance Bureau of Canada as it will undoubtedly reduce vehicle thefts. The electronic device is designed to arm itself automatically when the ignition is switched off to prevent any would-be Canuck car thieves from starting the car without the proper keys. It works by cutting off three vital contacts, the starter, ignition and fuel.
A study has found that of the top 10 most stolen cars in Canada last year, none were equipped with an approved immobilizer. In fact, the first car equipped with an immobilizer comes in at number 28 on the list.
[Source: AutoNorth.ca]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
remy 8:46AM (7/13/2007)
Good, only good came come out of this...except higher costs.
Its really hard if not impossible to start a car with a well made immobilizer...from my experience hehe (engine swaps).
Reply
Lee 7:43AM (7/18/2007)
Higher cost of the car maybe, but it will be highly outweighed by the money saved on insurance. Oh who am I kidding. Those greedy bastards will keep it for themselves.
CLIFF BURTON 10:44AM (7/18/2007)
In the greater scheme of things instead of the innocent having to pay twice; once, for the technology, twice, to house the lame ass that took your car.
Why don't you just cut the hands off of thieves, the penises off of rapists, the scrotum and testicles off of child molesters. Kill the killers. Problem solved. Have a real deterrent!!!!
Bottom line keep your fucking hands off of what is not yours.
Guenther 8:54AM (7/13/2007)
Sure it will reduce theft, but why does it need to be the Govt's business to mandate this? I still think it should be a market driven feature, promoted by the insurance companies. I'm not opposed to having an immobilyzer, it just bothers me when more an more regulations are put in place for things that don't impact the safety or air quality for others.
Reply
Paul 9:32AM (7/13/2007)
AMEN! However, Cadadians tend to be more socialistic rather than the generally Libertarian Americans. It isnt suprising it happened there and most people in that country probably wont see it as the government overstepping its bounds.
TRAVIS D 9:40AM (7/13/2007)
huhh Capitalism doesn't work for everything, and how does it not impact safety? every time i watch the news and there's a high speed car chase 9 out of 10 times its a stolen car, but i guess you would rather take that chance and let "market" decide.
psarhjinian 10:06AM (7/13/2007)
This isn't socialism, this is corporate welfare. Canada has some of the most stringent crash regulations in the world, true, but the most stand-out are this and the bumper bash tests.
The bumper-bash is what kept the Evo out, and continues to keep many other vehicles out. These things (theft, low-speed collision) cost the insurance industry money. Other claims cost them, too, but existing laws and designs that exist in all countries already cover those well. This is just a way to further reduce loss, and Canada is particularly spineless when it comes to the insurance lobby.
The industry lobbies for tighter regulations. The goverment acceeds to the request. Socialism would be across-the-board govenment-provided auto-insurance. This is very definitely not socialism. Not even close.
Peter 10:41AM (7/13/2007)
Anyone who thinks either capitalism or socialism is the only solution to everything is a blind zealot. The real world requires a mix of solutions tailored to the problem.
You don't get clean air without tough government regulation. Visit Calcutta and inhale to see what no regulation gives you.
This is a minor cost in the price of a car and drastically reduces thefts, especially from joy riding morons.
At least one Canadian province also has government vehicle insurance. I wish it was in mine. They have the best rates in Canada from what I hear.
Barney 4:45PM (7/13/2007)
"At least one Canadian province also has government vehicle insurance."
Peter, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia have government Insurance. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has been around since the early seventies and does provide the least expensive rates in Canada.
ItGuy 9:43AM (7/13/2007)
I thought most cars had them now. This is just the "chip in the key" that seems to work really well. I know for my car (G35) the car will try to start (starter will turn) but it never runs when the wrong key is inserted.
This is a good thing for the most part - those cars with the "chips in the key" (except GM's lame attempt at it) are impossible to steal without a flatbed.
Reply
paul34 12:44PM (7/13/2007)
Right, I'm actually shocked to hear that there are STILL cars that come without immobilizers in the modern world! wow...
supercujo 10:17AM (7/13/2007)
About 6 or 7 years behind Western Australia. It has been mandatory here and there were all sorts of doom and gloom naysayers coming out about increased car jackings etc. Never happened and it didn't change the prices on cars much at all.
Reply
ChrisL 10:27AM (7/13/2007)
Car insurance in our province is through a single public insurer. Several years ago the insurer started offering free installation of immobilizers on the vehicles with the highest theft rates...and theft slowed. They've been expanding the program to cover more cars every year with huge success in reducing car theft to the point where every insured motorist has received a refund cheque for 10% of thier premiums last year, and again another 10% this year.
As our insurer is owned by the public, savings in claim expenses is shared by all in the insurance pool...not passed on to a few shareholders as profit.
Our province has one of the lowest car insurance rates in North America as a result.
Reply
Barney 4:37PM (7/13/2007)
Have you heard of this device becoming a "Federal Act"? I know Ontario had introduced it but heard nothing about the BC province nor ICBC suggesting it.
Stoneman 1:12PM (7/13/2007)
Manitoba Public Insurance does NOT offer the lowest rates. I know. I lived there. And I also lived in Alberta, where rates were slightly LOWER than Manitoba's "AUTOPAC" crap. I pay more on the east coast than in the prairies. MPIC/Autopac has recently enforced "Mandatory auto immobilizer" for all cars. They are footing the $250.00 bill for each one. However you pay for that cost through higher insurance costs.
stonemanautoreview dot com
Reply
Barney 4:40PM (7/13/2007)
"And I also lived in Alberta, where rates were slightly LOWER than Manitoba's.."
I take it then that the Alberta government had done something to reduce your extremely high rates. I know that presently you still pay higher then BCs ICBC.
Jaymez 5:19PM (7/13/2007)
Glad I don't live in Canada. I look for vehicles without those damn chips. It cost my father $80 to have one spare key made because of those stupid chips. I have at least 5 spare keys for my truck. Four hundred bucks for keys? Blow me.
Reply
alex 6:32PM (7/13/2007)
great idea. immobilize your car so no one will steal it. now the car thieves will have to mug you for your car keys. wouldn't it be easier if the government instructed auto manufacturers to put in thumbprint readers instead? oh... wait... if that were the case, you'd have a whole lot more finger amputees walking around canada.
Reply
787B 8:42PM (7/13/2007)
Instead of penalizing car owners and manufacturers, why don't we increase the penalties on car thieves until stealing a car becomes unthinkable? Way too easy for governments to punish the innocent for the crimes of others, I guess...
Reply
Alpha 10:24PM (7/13/2007)
Thats such an unintelligent comment. Most of the people who steal (not all) are for drug reasons. These people have no rational thought other then get the car sell and get money for drugs. So harsher penalty's don't really do much other then put more people in jail. So why don't we just hit the root of the issue not the result.