If Britain is still the car crime capital of Europe does this mean that both local and national initiatives have not been successful? Discuss.
In order to understand car crime and interpret the relevant statistics correctly one must begin by defining what auto crime actually is. There are, I feel, three main areas that cover car crime: theft of a vehicle (TWOC) theft from a vehicle and joyriding. However there are other types of car crime that can bi identified, including driving whilst disqualified, insurance fraud, dangerous driving, to name but a few. Ultimately this shows that car crime is in fact a very diverse area which covers all types of crime.
More than one million cars were stolen or broken into last year in the UK. Furthermore vehicle crime accounted for nearly one quarter of all recorded crime in 1997 (NCS), yet by 1998 figures showed that car crime had decreased by 12%, an enormous drop which may give support to the claim that national and local initiatives may have had some positive effects. Statistical data that relates to car crime is said to be extremely accurate as insurance companies require that the police be notified when the victims are making claims. As a consequence failure to report the theft of a vehicle are extremely rare, and so on that premise there should be little unreported crime in relation to vehicles. However upon accessing the statistics for car crime in Europe there is the possibility of further distortions as some approaches measure crime simply on the basis of one crime per victim. Therefore if British statistics are conducted under the same methodological technique then we can compare crime rates between European countries, yet it is a fact that at the time of writing this essay the measuring of car crime differs between Britain and the rest of Europe. Therefore accurate comparisons cannot be made.
On the basis that the statistics I do have are accurate one can however confidently surmise that Britain is the car crime capital of Europe. Even when comparing the number of cars stolen when European countries measured car crime using the same techniques, we can further state that our country has been in this position for a considerable time. For example in 1996 493,500 cars were stolen, yet in France (the second highest) 344,860 were stolen. In Italy 317 897 was the figure, and so the gap between the top two still yields 30% more cars stolen in Britain. Previous years have seen decreases in recorded car crime in Britain, such as the 12% fall between 1997/8, yet our presence as the car crime capital remains unchanged. However there are mixed messages being received: according to the consumer association are still on the increase? Even the Home Office admits that the UK has the worst record in Europe, yet through local and national initiatives the government has prioritised car crime as something that needs to be addressed. Yet do such views and figures provide the evidence that all of the existing initiatives have in fact failed?
According to the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, 'there is still much to do.' The government has identified major areas that need to be targeted in order to reduce car crime. Primarily, partnerships need to be formed and maintained between car manufacturers, the industry and the consumer. There also needs to be an allocation of priority levels, those vehicle types most at risk for example need to be given a greater priority, and a greater deal of awareness needs to be developed in the market when locating stolen goods. Forensic science must also play a more pivotal role in the detection of car crime through the use of finger printing and DNA initiatives. Lastly improved technology must be utilised when possible, for example satellite tracking is an idea which ones feels will greatly reduce car crime. It is these efforts that, given the time and financial backing, which may allow Britain to lose the title of a car crime king, yet it may be harsh and somewhat premature to support the idea that the implemented initiatives have thus far failed.
So what are these initiatives? On a national level the government has set up a vehicle reduction action team (1998) to meet its own target of a 30% reduction in car crime over the next five years. In relation to recent car crime figures this will mean a drop from 1.1 million offences to just 780,000. The primary objective set out for this team was to concentrate on the security of both old and new cars, primarily through the fitting of electronic immobilises. It is now standard for all cars produced in Europe to be fitted with these devices, yet this team wants to make sure that all used cars are fitted with them in order to pass their MOT' tests from April 2001. Improved policing and community responses within hot spot target areas, improved car parking security and the introduction of new procedures at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are also high on the agenda.
Operation Impact aimed to work in conjunction with the government strategy and involves a large scale crackdown in car crime in Scotland. All eight of Scotland's police forces were used and it is the first time that all of the police forces have launched such a co-ordinated effort. The operation itself used a mixture of the latest technology, high profile road checks/patrols and surveillance and DNA testing. The Chief Constable of Strathclyde police, John Orr, stated....
'It represents a huge problem for every force in Scotland and I believe that working together is the best way to tackle it'
(BBC News 1999)
After its initial trial of a few weeks Strathclyde police hailed it a success, and a further three month drive was introduced as another phase in the high profile crackdown. Global positioning satellite tracking devices, targeting known hot spots and the introduction of the stop track devices (punctures the vehicle tyres) were also implemented to achieve greater success. Overall, when assessing this three month period, 11,093 motor vehicle offences were reported, showing a steep decline in recorded car crime. One particular incident saw the conviction of a 20 year old who admitted to over 50 other offences. Such tactics therefore resulted in a significant increase in detection rates.
There are similar initiatives throughout the rest of the country, including a squad to tackle joy riding, implemented by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The team for autocrime (TAC) have also been using state of the art equipment, technology and covert operations to reduce car crime. However given the infancy of such programmes their effectiveness cannot be measured at this time.
Since 1971 all cars that are manufactured in, or imported to Britain have been fitted with steering column locks as standard. However although such measures would surely yield the desired result of decreased car crime, the opposite has in fact occurred and car crime has continued to rise. Does this mean that such an approach could be deemed a failure? A study was undertaken to answer that very question, which used two sets of statistics, before and after column steering locks. New cars that were under three years old were used for comparison and the results indicated that in the 'before' category 21% of new cars were illegally taken compared with only 5.1% in the after category. This difference could be attributed to the protection of anti theft devices, and in particular steering locks. Therefore one could surmise, with confidence, that the introduction of steering locks significantly reduced the theft of cars.
Also at a national level is the scheme of 'safer cities,' which involves the installation of CCTV cameras in car parks. Cars are four times more likely to be stolen from car parks than from any other place, such as work and home environments. When analysing the results of this project one must look on a local level, whereby schemes at Hartlepool, Bradford, Hull, Lewisham, Coventry and Wolverhampton have all been evaluated in depth. In the Lewisham car park CCTV was installed in April 1991 and the results showed that from April to July 1990 there were 24 recorded car crimes, yet in a corresponding period the following year there were only 6. In Bradford the cameras were installed in John Street car park in July 1991, and the results were compared to the surrounding car parks. Thefts of and from cars were recorded twelve months prior to the installation of the cameras, and twelve months after. Thefts from cars decreased by 68% in John Street car park over that period, and theft of cars decreased by 43%. All other surrounding car parks showed increases of between 5% and 32%.
However not all of the results point to what clearly can be seen as a hugely successful set of programmes in Lewisham and Bradford. In Hartlepool however the results are far from conclusive. Before CCTV was even introduced there were decreases of car crime in both of the car parks where the CCTV system was to be installed, and also those car parks who were not due to receive CCTV. Upon installation the downward trend continued in the car parks fitted with CCTV, but in those not covered it began to increase. These results could be explained through the theory of displacement, that is the criminal will be deterred from the secured car park and move onto the next one. The results from this study could also suggest that the advantages of CCTV may decline over time, and that underlying local trends may resume.
All of these local schemes may have lead to a decline or a displacement of car crime, but in terms of arrest the mechanisms have been poor. It would seem that CCTV is at its most effective when combined with other reductive methods, such as security personnel, signs and media coverage. There is a danger that over time CCTV will lose its credibility over its failure to convict car criminals, and thus lose it effectiveness. Thus we can conclude from these local initiatives that the success of CCTV in car parks has proved inconclusive, showing signs of both success and failure. As with many initiatives which aim to reduce car crime, more time is one feels, needed to further evaluate such results. The Home Office has given a 'secured car park status' to around 500 car parks in Britain, yet they want that figure to be 2000 by the end of the year. There is also a 150 million pounds fund available for further initiatives.
The manufacturing industry has also played its part in car crime initiatives, mainly through spending millions on developing complex security systems. However the consumers association decided to test just how effective these initiatives were and carried out a demonstration at the Imperial War Museum in London. 35 different makes of car were tested for security, that is testing features such as immobilisers and door locks, and although the results were poor in terms of prevention, those that scored best in Theft 'of' also scored poorly in terms of Theft 'from.'The association also found that the weakness in cars is the window, yet the manufacturers are not directing prevention initiatives at this weakness. Thus we can state that the manufacturing initiatives are at best, misdirected, and have failed to significantly reduce car crime.
Thus on this evidence one could suggest that local and national initiatives to combat car crime have been relatively successful. Yet such projects are still very much in their infancy, and a true and accurate representation of their effectiveness cannot be fully reviewed. It is only recently that the government has targeted car crime as a major problem. There are also more strategies that will emerge in the future, drawn up between the Departments of the Environment and Transport, and the police. These include promoting a greater sharing of information between the police/DVLA, stamping identification numbers on car parks, improving controls on the exportation of second hand cars and giving police the power to inspect scrap yards.
To conclude one would surmise that car crime is still a huge problem in this county, and although the early signs of government initiatives are encouraging, a lot more can be done by two other sections of the industry. The first of these is the manufacturing group, who may be spending millions on developing anti theft devices, they need to take a second look at developing techniques to address weaknesses. This was demonstrated by the study carried out by the consumer association. The second group is that of the car user, who should be encouraged to use garages and safe car parks whenever possible, purchase anti theft devices and remember to use common sense in terms of locking cars and closing windows.
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2025. All rights reserved.