Reviewing the effectiveness of electronic vehicle immobilisation: Evidence from four countries

Abstract

This article reviews the evidence from 16 studies that have examined the impact of electronic immobilisation on vehicle theft in the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and the USA. Six hypotheses that explore how electronic immobilisers work were examined. The results show that 15 of the 16 studies indicate that electronic immobilisation has been successful in reducing vehicle theft. These reductions have mostly been larger for temporary (recovered) vehicle thefts than for permanent (unrecovered) thefts. This may also have resulted in a reduction in young people engaging in vehicle theft. Although some studies showed there had been displacement towards vehicles without electronic immobilisation, this was outweighed by the reductions in vehicle theft observed overall.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The majority score three rather than higher because of the lack of comparability between the experimental and control groups. There was no evidence that the models in each group were similar.

  2. 2.

    The Car Theft Index was a publication produced by the Home Office that calculated the rate of theft for each make/model/trim of cars on the road. This was based on vehicle thefts recorded by the police and vehicle population data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  3. 3.

    Note that the British Crime Survey asks questions about car crime, rather than vehicle crime.

  4. 4.

    The fact that the vehicle age in the two groups was similar is important because theft rates generally increase with age, meaning it is important to control for the age of the vehicle as much as possible. The weak control for age in the national analysis is identified as a weakness of this study in the Appendix.

  5. 5.

    Note that the NHTSA report did not refer to electronic immobilisers, but the description given of the security device would seem to be referring to such immobilisers. This is described as follows: In most of the vehicles, the equipment included a specially designed ignition key. A computer in the vehicle reads an encoded capsule embedded in the key and compares it to a microchip within the computer. The ignition is shut down if the codes do not match, or it is attempted to ‘hot wire’ the car (NHTSA, 1998, pp. A35–A36).

  6. 6.

    The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (1984) allowed some model lines to be exempt from parts marking if they were installed with manufacturer fitted security devices.

  7. 7.

    Note that this hypothesis was confirmed 16 times even though only 15 studies showed a positive impact because in one study Farrell et al (2010) provided evidence for both the United Kingdom and Australia and so was counted twice. Also note that Potter and Thomas (2001) appears twice for this hypothesis – once for Western Australia and once for Australia nationally.

  8. 8.

    These results run contrary to the findings of Brown (2004) and Kriven and Ziersch (2007) who both analysed stolen vehicle age curves and found evidence for a link between permanent thefts and the introduction of immobilisers.

References

  1. Barry, D., Collard, J., Perchonok, E., Preysnar, W. and Harold, S. (1975) Preliminary Study of the Effectiveness of Auto Anti-theft Devices. Washington DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bässmann, J. (2011) Vehicle theft reduction in Germany: The long-term effectiveness of electronic immobilisation. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research 17 (3): 221–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, R. (2004) The effectiveness of electronic immobilisation: Changing patterns of temporary and permanent theft. In: M. Maxfield and R.V. Clarke (eds.) Understanding and Preventing Car Theft, Crime Prevention Studies Vol. 17. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, R. and Thomas, N. (2003) Aging vehicles: Evidence of the effectiveness of new car security from the home office car theft index. Security Journal 16 (3): 45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Checkoway, S. et al (2011) Comprehensive experimental analysis of automotive attack surfaces. Proceedings of the USE-NIX Security Symposium, San Francisco, California, August 2011.

  6. Copes, H. and Cherbonneau, M. (2006) The key to auto theft: Emerging methods of auto theft from the offenders’ perspective. British Journal of Criminology 46 (5): 917–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ekblom, P. (1997) Gearing up against crime: A dynamic framework to help designers keep up with the adaptive criminal in a changing world. International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention 2 (4): 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ekblom, P. (2012) The private sector and designing products against crime. In: B.C. Welsh and D.P. Farrington (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 384–403.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., Mailley, J. and Tilley, N. (2010) The crime drop and the security hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48 (2): 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Farrell, G., Tseloni, A. and Tilley, N. (2011) The effectiveness of vehicle security devices and their role in the crime drop. Criminology and Criminal Justice 11 (1): 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fujita, S. and Maxfield, M. (2012) Security and the drop in car theft in the united states. In: J. van Dijk, A. Tslenoi and G. Farrell (eds.) The International Crime Drop: New Directions in Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hazelbaker, K. (1997) Insurance industry analyses and the prevention of motor vehicle theft. In: M. Felson and R.V. Clarke (eds.) Business and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. JP Research. (2006) Phase 2 Final Report: Effectiveness of Parts Marking and Anti-theft Devices in Inhibiting Auto Theft. Mountain View, CA: JP Research.

  14. Koscher, K. et al (2010) Experimental security analysis of a modern automobile. 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-oakland2010.pdf, accessed 19 December 2012.

  15. Kriven, S. and Ziersch, E. (2007) New car security and shifting vehicle theft patterns in Australia. Security Journal 20 (2): 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Laycock, G. (2004) The UK car theft index: An example of government leverage. In: M. Maxfield and R.V. Clarke (eds.) Understanding and Preventing Car Theft, Crime Prevention Studies Vol. 17. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lee, A., Wyndham, T. and Fairman, T. (2006) Reducing theft of old vehicles: Raising levels of investment in car immobilisers. In: Economic and Resource Analysis (ed.) Changing Behaviour to Prevent Crime: An Incentives-based Approach, Home Office Online Report 05/06. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Levesley, T., Braun, G., Wilkinson, M. and Powell, C. (2004) Emerging Methods of Car Theft: Theft of Keys, Findings 239. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mason, S. (2012) Vehicle remote keyless entry systems and engine immobilisers: Do not believe the insurer that this technology is perfect. Computer Law and Security Review 28 (2): 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mayhew, P., Clarke, R. and Hough, M. (1992) Steering column locks and car theft. In: R.V. Clarke (ed.) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York: Harrow and Heston, pp. 52–65.

    Google Scholar 

  21. MM Starrs Pty Ltd. (2002) Principles for Compulsory Immobiliser Schemes. Melbourne: National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council.

  22. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1998) Auto Theft and Recovery: Effects of the Anti Car Theft Act 1992 and the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984. Washington DC: US Department of Transport.

  23. National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council. (2007) The Effectiveness of Immobilisers in Preventing Vehicle Theft in Australia. CARS Brief Report, April 2007. Melbourne: National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council.

  24. Newman, G.R. (2004) Car safety and car security. In: M. Maxfield and R.V. Clarke (eds.) Understanding and Preventing Car Theft. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing. Crime Prevention Studies Vol. 17. pp. 217–248.

  25. Pawson, R. (2006) Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Perry, H.W. (1910) Anti joy ride devices. Scientific American 15 January 1910: 49, 58 and 70.

  27. Potter, R. and Thomas, P. (2001) Engine Immobilisers: How Effective Are They? South Australia: National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rhodes, W., Johnston, P. and McMullen, Q. (1999) An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Automobile Parts Marking on Preventing Theft. Revised final report prepared for the National Institute of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

  29. Rhodes, W. and Kling, R. (2003) An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Automobile Parts Marking and Anti-theft Devices on Preventing Theft. Report prepared for National Institute of Justice. Contract #OJP-99-165-M. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

  30. Sallybanks, J. and Brown, R. (1998) Vehicle Crime Reduction: Turning the Corner. Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Police Research Series Paper 119. London: Home Office.

  31. Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D.C., MacKenzie, D.L., Eck, J., Reuter, P. and Bushway, S.D. (1998) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t and What's Promising, Research in Brief. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Southall, D. and Ekblom, P. (1985) Designing for Vehicle Security: Towards a Crime Free Car, Crime Prevention Unit Paper 4. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Van Dijk, J., Manchin, R., van Kesteren, J., Nevala, S. and Hideg, G. (2005) The Burden of Crime in the EU. Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the European Crime and Safety Survey. (EU ICS) 2005.

  34. Van Dijk, J., Tslenoi, A. and Farrell, G. (2012) The International Crime Drop: New Directions in Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Webb, B. (1994) Steering column locks and motor vehicle theft: Evaluations from three countries. In: R.V. Clarke (ed.) Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Webb, B. (2005) Preventing vehicle crime. In: N. Tilley (ed.) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 458–485.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Webb, B., Smith, M. and Laycock, G. (2004) Designing out crime through vehicle licensing and registration systems’ theft. In: M. Maxfield and R.V. Clarke (eds.) Understanding and Preventing Car Theft, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 17. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing, pp. 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1

Table A1 Summary of studies examining the effectiveness of electronic vehicle immobilisation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, R. Reviewing the effectiveness of electronic vehicle immobilisation: Evidence from four countries. Secur J 28, 329–351 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.55

Download citation

Keywords

  • vehicle security
  • electronic immobilisation
  • immobiliser
  • vehicle theft
  • acquisitive crime