For more than 10 years, SBD have been monitoring the theft methods used by thieves to steal vehicles across the world and how the insurance and automotive industries have responded to bring down the number of cars stolen. Electronic immobilisation has played a major part and has been the main reason behind reductions of up to 60% in the level of theft in many countries. More recently, SBD research has revealed that some thieves are not daunted by current security technology and there is an underlying level of professional theft that has not been as significantly reduced as the overall data would indicate. SBD’s Director of Vehicle Security, Jeremy Worthington explains more…
Q: What does the theft data tell us?
Jeremy Worthington: In every country which has adopted mandatory immobilisation, we have seen a clear reduction in the number of vehicles stolen since immobilisers were introduced. There has been a distinct reduction in the volume of thefts conducted by less skilled thieves where the motive was temporary use of the car. In countries where additional security requirements have been introduced (usually insurance schemes such as those from Thatcham in the UK, AZT in Germany, and SCM in Holland) there has been even more reduction; analysis of the volume of cars stolen shows a clear correlation between lower security and an increased theft risk. The year on year reductions seen since 2000 have become smaller and smaller; the latest figures show a plateau, and in some cases even a slight rise in thefts from 2009 to 2010.
Recovery rates are one indicator of professional theft, meaning theft motivated by profit and committed in an organised manner. Recovery rates have also dropped and the overall picture emerging is that the security measures taken have eliminated what was previously considered to be casual theft such as joyriding and we are now able to see what was before the underlying and invisible amount of more organised theft.
Q: What does the theft data not tell us?
JW: We must be careful to understand how the data has been counted.
We need to establish what types of vehicle are included such as plant and agricultural equipment, motorbikes, etc; whether the data includes all reports of theft or recovered vehicles and undetected thefts have been excluded; whether it includes all losses including vehicles taken through deception, as part of a burglary or by another crime; whether it is based on police reports or insurance reports because not all thefts are reported to everyone.
SBD spend considerable time correlating international data to try and compare similar data sets taken from similar sources.
In order to compare countries that are using different criteria and to identify trends by brand or vehicle type, we also calculate the theft risk based on the number of vehicles available to be stolen. This can uncover threats that are not immediately obvious from the theft numbers. By tracking this data across time, it also enables organisations to identify which markets need priority or urgent attention.
The theft data cannot tell us how these vehicles are being stolen, by whom or for what purpose. In order to be able to respond to these threats, it’s not sufficient to know simply how many cars or what the likelihood of them being stolen is, we need to understand how they are being taken.
Q: So what indicators should we be looking for?
JW: To uncover the trends of theft methods, we need to examine data from the police, from insurance claim assessors, and to look at the availability of methods and tools. There is a large amount of false information such as You-Tube videos of alleged weaknesses exploited using mobile phones, TV remote controls and even sink plungers. Many small gadgets are sold which may in fact only succeed in working on a small range of older models that are using outdated technology. By casting an expert eye over the information being presented, and the tools and equipment being offered for sale we are able to identify what may actually be happening on those vehicles which are stolen and never recovered.
Genuine methods and tools are usually accompanied by a level of detail and information. An absence of explanation about which cars are affected, or how the method works, is often an early sign that the claims are exaggerated or simply untrue. Repetition of the same claim with increasing severity (as opposed to confirmation of the claims by independent sources) is also an indication that the claim may not stand up to scrutiny or testing.
It is important not to believe all the false claims and waste resource investigating methods that are not feasible (every cry of “Wolf”), because this can also lead to real weaknesses getting missed (when the “Wolf” really is out there).
Q: What is really happening and what types of vehicle does it affect?
JW: Information from various international sources shows that the largest proportion of thefts of newer models (less than 3 years old) are conducted using an original key. Keys are obtained in various different ways, but once the thief is in possession of the key, they can disarm all of the on board theft prevention systems.
Many loopholes exist in vehicle security systems to enable them to be manufactured and serviced easily and cheaply. With the amount of technical data sharing now demanded by European and US legislation, it is easier to identify weaknesses in security systems and we are seeing an increasing number of electronic tools developed specifically to bypass the built-in security of vehicles and allow them to be operated using a new key.
The majority of tools are aimed at high value or high volume vehicles, where the thieves can make most profit from the theft.
Q: What can be done about this?
JW: In addition to the amount of information we have already collected on theft threats, during 2011 SBD are assembling databases of theft tools detailing availability, price, purpose, and the types of vehicles affected. We are looking in detail at the specific threats posed by access to the vehicle electronics via CAN, wireless systems and direct manipulation of the ECU’s or IC’s.
By looking at the approaches used by thieves it should be possible to develop more secure architecture. This is especially important for brands that use common architecture across multiple models, because one weakness can affect so many vehicles. With the potential for future development of common standards for vehicle communications across all brands, it is critical that the existing weaknesses are fully understood and addressed.
SBD have assembled and rationalised the latest theft data into a 21 country summary titled Global Theft Statistics, which compares the theft risk between countries and looks at the history of theft in each country to uncover trends and patterns.
SBD’s research titled Vehicle crime in the 21st century and the impact of electronic theft methods, reveals the latest theft threats, describes in detail the types of methods being used and who is using them.
For forthcoming reports and databases, please see our 2011 research plan
To purchase any of the reports above or for more information, please contact Juanita Appleby on jappleby@sbd.co.uk