I also suspect that there’s a certain point where having a decent number of unlocked cars encourages not only those specific cars to be stolen, but car thefts in general to increase. Having at least a few cars that are easy to break into lowers the risk and ups the reward for car thieves, making the activity in general more profitable and putting even those people who do lock their cars at increased risk.
I think it impacts whether or not a particular car gets robbed, but I am not sure it reduced the total number of thefts, at least by professionals–i.e., if a car thief is working a parking lot, he’s going to prefer locked cars over unlocked cars, cars without alarms over cars with them, cars with purses visible on the seat over cars without purses, etc. But he’s still there to rob cars–if all of them are locked, he’ll move to the next criteria. In that case, other cars locking their doors might make your car more vunerable.
On the other hand, locked doors are effective against opportunistic thieves (i.e., kids fucking around). And a culture of locked doors may get kids out of the habit of trying.
So I guess it’s a matter of setting and type of crime.
The counterargument to that is: if a thief is planning on robbing cars, and he encounters a locked car, he’ll break in - and you’ll call the police. So you call the cops either way.
Yeah, it might deter less determined thieves but it’s not that great a preventive.
Typo Knig’s car got broken into at work a few years back. Lost about 20 CDs and a portable CD player (yeah, he wasn’t smart leaving them visible, but still). And did about 700 dollars damage to the car. The thief probably made less than 40 bucks on the whole deal, our insurance company was out a chunk of cash, we were out a chunk of cash.
As a point of personal data, of the four times my car got broken into, three of those times I had my car doors unlocked. (Only once did I actually forget to lock my car doors – two of the three times a passenger or other driver didn’t lock the door.) Sure, if they really want something out of the car they’ll smash and go, but on a busy block (where this happened), I’m sure plenty of thieves would rather go the more inconspicuous route rather than risk causing a ruckus by smashing out a car window.
You didn’t even read my response to your previous post, did you? I’d like to hear what you have to say about post 17.
That’s been my experience as well. Someone broke into the car I had after the convertible by taking a crowbar to the sunroof. He stole my radio (probably worth $150), and it cost well over $1,000 to fix the car.
If you don’t leave valuable stuff in the car (or put it in the trunk if you have one), then (in my experience) leaving your doors unlocked puts less of a burden on your insurance company and your community, not more. That’s why this ordinance is stupid and counterproductive.
Why is the burden on someone else? How about you show that not locking the car door does cost more overall?
A mediocre car thief can open a car in less than 5 seconds using a small screw driver and they’ll do it in such a manner as to look like they’re unlocking the door. Bricks are for teenagers who want to damage windows because it’s fun.
I like reading the police blotter in my local paper. There are always multiple reports of thefts from unlocked cars, both of property and the cars themselves. There are also usually a few reports of smash and grabs from cars. Since the vast majority of our residents lock their cars, I think I can state confidently that thieves are not selecting cars, then randomly finding them unlocked. If that were the case, the vast majority of these crimes would be from locked cars, and they are not.
Unlocked cars are targets of opportunity, and increase the frequency of petty crime. I don’t know that I’d go so far as to make it a violation to have your car unlocked, but locked doors deter criminals.
Well, I can only speak from experience. The people I know (including myself) who have gotten their car broken into have either gotten a window smashed or didn’t lock their car doors. I don’t think most thieves around these parts are sophisticated enough to even use this small screwdriver you’re talking about.
Yes, but what is the cost to society as a whole?
On one hand, in theory possibly, if the car is unlocked it “causes” a crime that might not otherwise occur.
If most/all cars are locked perhaps less overall crime occurs. But when a theft occurs, it either results in a slashed convertible top, a ruined sunroof, a broken window, or a screwed up lock/car door.
My WAG/HO is that overall, somewhat fewer cars broken into/messed up costs society more than more cars “broken into” that have no damage done but more stuff inside taken. Car repairs are expensive, regardless of who ends up paying for them.
If the economic equation isnt WAY weighted in one direction or another, I opt for personal choice in this decision and am greatly against ordiances that punish the possible VICTIM exercising that choice.
You didn’t even read the beginning of the post you were responding to (20), did you? 
That initial disclaimer was thrown in there especially for you. I’m open to changing my opinion, but not everyone drives convertibles and leaves nothing of value in their car, do they?
Hmmm, maybe we should just make it a fineable offense for anyone to leave anything of any value in a car without a human being present.
Should prevent any criminals from being tempted AND prevent any theft.
Shouldnt be too inconvenient and think of all the crime it will stop.
Won’t someone think of the criminals? Poor tempted little souls.
Yep! And I’m off to go burka shopping now, because I wouldn’t want to tempt anyone.
Forget whether or not a car is more likely to be broken into if you have it locked.
Do you really want to your government making all kinds of rules like this? How about we make it illegal to own one of the makes of cars most likely to be stolen? Require that all wallets be carried in the front, not back, pants pocket? All purses must be worn across the body, not clutched or over one shoulder?
Each of those examples would decrease the costs to society. Each would impose little to no extra cost on the individual. But do you want to have your actions dictacted to this degree?
dude…
if you read my post as a serious proposal, you need to listen for a faint wooshing sound.
My proposal was to show the absurdity of placing the burden of preventing crime on the VICTIM.
though I’ve got to wonder why ivan hasnt shown up here yet.
Dude, read the rest of my post. I was jumping right on the “let’s make fun of the placing the blame on the victim” bandwagon.
Okay
Its whoooshes passing in the night then 
We will just have to agree to agree !
Otherwise I hear crickets chirping…I guess the pro-lock and ticket crowd aint coming back.
I will absolutely grant you that people often have no choice but to leave valuables in their car. If you are spending the day shopping away from home in your hatchback, you pretty much have to. But that doesn’t answer this question:
Why should I have to lock my doors and risk damage to my car for no reason because you have valuables in your car? This should not be handled with legislation.
I’m kind of guessing that if Tastes of Chocolate is going burka shopping, she isn’t a dude.
Although the name is tempting enough…