Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you disagree that a car that's more reparable is more easily stolen? Yes,I do. > imagine a car with screws on the door to be swapped, and another car without them. you don't think the car with the screws would be easier to steal? I imagined that. Every car door I have ever interacted with had the screws on the hinges such that you could only access them with the door open. You could swap all of them. This is not a…
I don't know what to tell ya then. clearly and obviously, a door that can be taken off, and thus is more easily repaired, could be stolen easier than one that is not (e.g. door is welded after being attached to the car). if you disagree with that then we have to agree to disagree. > Thing is nobody is asking Kia to do something unprecedented. All people are asking to be about as safe from stealing as cars from other…
Well maybe tell me a single car model where the door cannot be taken off and a single source outside of yourself who claims this as an anti-theft feature.
> if you disagree with that then we have to agree to disagree.
I agree with you that welding the hinge of a door to the chassis would lower its repairability. I disagree that it would make it less likely to be stolen. Cars are not stolen by people walking off with their doors. Assuming that there is some means of ingress and egress enabling normal users to regularly enter the vehicle, that is the doors are not completely welded shut, thiefs will use that.
If you are making the point that a vehicle completely welded shut would be less repairable, and also less likely to be stolen I guess I have to agree with that. For some reason I don’t predict it to be a comercial success though.
Common vehicle anti-theft features include immobilisers, steering locks, coded key fobs, car alarms, kill switches. I don’t see that you have shown that these techniques make cars less repairable.
> how about you just not buy kia.
Consider it done.
> why people want to involve the government in everything is just beyond me
I can explain this part. People get their car stolen and they call the police to report it. They expect that the police will expend resources to find it and punish the thieves. Many in among these very comments have expressed that sentiment. That is where the government gets in the picture.
Or people fall victim of some other crime. Like they have a hit and run traffic accident, or someone smashes into their shop window with a car and drives away with stolen goods, or any number of other crimes. They report it to the police who investigates and realises that the criminals used a stolen car to facilitate their crime. Because a ready source of easily stolen cars is not just a headache for the people whose car have gone missing. It undermines the security and safety of others too. This is an other way how the government got involved.
Are you with me so far? Do you agree that people can and should report to the police when crimes have been commited against them?
Assuming that we are on the same page so far. Or at least that you are seeing my point even if you are not agreeing: what happens next is that the police looks at their statistics and sees that many of these crimes have their root in the shoddy safety practices of a particular car manufacturer. They see that it costs them a lot of money too. So they go and ask their own government paid lawyer and ask them if they can do something about this. And presumably said lawyer told them that yes they can do something about it, they can sue the car manufacturer for public nuisance.
That is how people reporting crimes leads to the police noticing a common theme in the crimes and that leads to the city suing the vehicle manufacturer. I hope that answers your question about how and why people got the government involved in this issue.