Hacker News Reader

Comment by close04 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

My point is Montreal could be as theft free as Tokyo but it never will be as long as the people that live their keep accepting the existence of so much theft as the norm. It's not the norm. It's the way they continue to let it be. But they can't see it's not the norm because they've never experience a place where it's not the norm.

That's irrelevant, you're just moving the goalposts. The point is you are the one who lives in a bubble, not everyone else, and I just answered your question to the point. Since theft still exists (and the numbers aren't exactly trivial, they're half what Montreal has) it means you should still lock your doors. That's why they come with a lock.

On the other hand please refrain from judging others for their choices and opinions, and also stop assuming only you've seen the truth. The same justice and policing system that lowered the crime rate is also responsible for suspects being considered guilty until proven innocent, routinely coerced into confessing even when being innocent [0], and sometimes investigating crimes only if a conviction is almost guaranteed otherwise treating it as an accident to keep those stats looking good [1] [2].

I'll just lock my doors, thank you.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=japan+forced+confessions

[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/world/fg-autopsy9 [Not for EU it seems]

[2] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/07/08/issues/pol...

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.

'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.

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.

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?

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com