New BMW's getting stolen using blank BMW keys

[smashy]

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=736...

Horrible.



....mean while back at BMW HQ.

[Pugland53]

V8A*ndy said:

If anyone is wondering about insurance premiums.

The wife has just had a quote for renewal for the 1M.

£240 with Directline.

Now that's in Belfast which is higher than most places.

I'd say that's a bargin and won't get offered much cheaper.

Same here, my cheapest quote last year was £600, this year I got it for £380! It doesn't make sense.

[TX1]

youngsyr said:

I would suspect that BMW are only responsible for making sure that the alarm is up to the standards/claims that they make in their adverts/marketing literature. They don't guarantee their cars against theft, after all.

I do not know what up to standard entails however the whole point of an alarm is to stop intrusion, of course I am not saying that BMW can guarantee cars against theft.
What I am saying is these cars are getting pinched in the simplest way possible, by smashing the window and tempering with their arm inside the car.
The alarm black spot should not be there as that is the whole point of an alarm.

[mrmr96]

TX1 said:

I do not know what up to standard entails however the whole point of an alarm is to stop intrusion, of course I am not saying that BMW can guarantee cars against theft.
What I am saying is these cars are getting pinched in the simplest way possible, by smashing the window and tempering with their arm inside the car.
The alarm black spot should not be there as that is the whole point of an alarm.

If we're being pedantic (which I think we should be on this subject) the whole point of an alarm is not to "stop intrustion" rather it is to inform you that intrusion has occured. The BMW alarm reportedly has a dead zone which means it doesn't always do this.

(FWIW the doors and glass should prevent intrusion and the immobiliser should stop the car from being started.)

HTH

[Pesty]

its also to scare the intruder of because if the alarm were to go off he has a greater chance of being caught.

[mrmr96]

Pesty said:

its also to scare the intruder of because if the alarm were to go off he has a greater chance of being caught.

No, that's a consequence of people being informed of an intrusion. The thief is scared of the response to the alarm, not the alarm itself.

[Pesty]

or the possibility of the alarm fetching people hence scaring him off

[mrmr96]

Pesty said:

or the possibility of the alarm fetching people hence scaring him off

That is the response to the alarm.

(Are you winding me up btw?! )

[Pesty]

you looked an easy target

[TX1]

The alarm should detect an arm hanging inside so in my opinion it is not doing what it is meant to do.

[Thom987]

TX1 said:

The alarm should detect an arm hanging inside so in my opinion it is not doing what it is meant to do.

The alarm should detect the window breaking.

[dave_s13]

Chatting to a neighbour yesterday (who's a traffic BiB) about my car (E61) as he often drives that same thing at work.

He knew nothing about any BMW's getting nicked up my way (Leeds).

Whether or not a traffic officer would even be aware of such things I'm not sure, but I assumed it might be on his radar?

[youngsyr]

dave_s13 said:

Chatting to a neighbour yesterday (who's a traffic BiB) about my car (E61) as he often drives that same thing at work.

He knew nothing about any BMW's getting nicked up my way (Leeds).

Whether or not a traffic officer would even be aware of such things I'm not sure, but I assumed it might be on his radar?

One of my friends works/ed in the car crime unit at Thames Valley Police and has no traffic policing experience, so going from that I'd say that traffic police and car crime unit are independent.

I haven't specifically brought the key cloning theft up with him as I haven't spoken to him for a while, but I have discussed car crime in general and (about 6 months ago) he seemed to imply that if a modern car was stolen without a key, there was a high possibility that it was insurance fraud by the owner.

It'd be interesting to see what his current view is, assuming he hasn't moved departments.

[youngsyr]

Thom987 said:

TX1 said:

The alarm should detect an arm hanging inside so in my opinion it is not doing what it is meant to do.

The alarm should detect the window breaking.

Well, this is the crux of the legal responsibility issue as far as I can see. If BMW advertise their car security as meeting a certain (Thatcham?) standard and it can be proven that it doesn't, then it would seem to me that they would be responsible for any damages caused to the original owner from the car not having that level of security.

[r999]

youngsyr said:

If BMW advertise their car security as meeting a certain (Thatcham?) standard and it can be proven that it doesn't, then it would seem to me that they would be responsible for any damages caused to the original owner from the car not having that level of security.

But it was Thatcham, not BMW, who certified that it met their standard.

There is more than one party looking incompetent over this.

[youngsyr]

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

If BMW advertise their car security as meeting a certain (Thatcham?) standard and it can be proven that it doesn't, then it would seem to me that they would be responsible for any damages caused to the original owner from the car not having that level of security.

But it was Thatcham, not BMW, who certified that it met their standard.

There is more than one party looking incompetent over this.

In that case, why are BMW dismissing it out of hand - it suggests to me that they either know or are hoping that nothing can be pinned on them. Can anyone point to any official BMW literature stating that their car security meets a certain standard?

[bodhi]

youngsyr said:

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

If BMW advertise their car security as meeting a certain (Thatcham?) standard and it can be proven that it doesn't, then it would seem to me that they would be responsible for any damages caused to the original owner from the car not having that level of security.

But it was Thatcham, not BMW, who certified that it met their standard.

There is more than one party looking incompetent over this.

In that case, why are BMW dismissing it out of hand - it suggests to me that they either know or are hoping that nothing can be pinned on them. Can anyone point to any official BMW literature stating that their car security meets a certain standard?

It will be advertised as Thatcham approved I would expect, which it was, as Thatcham approved it.

[Cheib]

I can't see any chance of BMW being sued for this and they certainly won't admit liability. There are plenty of car manufacturers that have had to issue major recall's in the past and I can't ever remember the manufacturer being sued for good not being fit for purpose.

[youngsyr]

bodhi said:

youngsyr said:

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

If BMW advertise their car security as meeting a certain (Thatcham?) standard and it can be proven that it doesn't, then it would seem to me that they would be responsible for any damages caused to the original owner from the car not having that level of security.

But it was Thatcham, not BMW, who certified that it met their standard.

There is more than one party looking incompetent over this.

In that case, why are BMW dismissing it out of hand - it suggests to me that they either know or are hoping that nothing can be pinned on them. Can anyone point to any official BMW literature stating that their car security meets a certain standard?

It will be advertised as Thatcham approved I would expect, which it was, as Thatcham approved it.

It is advertised as Thatcham I, but couldn't see a mention of "approved", in the 1 series brochure. Interesting choice of wording as it reads to me that BMW could be responsible and not Thatcham, as BMW are the ones making the claim that it meets Thatcham's standards.

Of course, Thatcham will in all liklihood have approved the system, but I imagine that would have no impact on BMW's liability to the (original) car owner, because BMW seem to claim that the system meets the criteria (which clearly it cannot), not that Thatcham has approved the system.

[r999]

youngsyr said:

It is advertised as Thatcham I, but couldn't see a mention of "approved", in the 1 series brochure. Interesting choice of wording as it reads to me that BMW could be responsible and not Thatcham, as BMW are the ones making the claim that it meets Thatcham's standards.

Of course, Thatcham will in all liklihood have approved the system, but I imagine that would have no impact on BMW's liability to the (original) car owner, because BMW seem to claim that the system meets the criteria (which clearly it cannot), not that Thatcham has approved the system.

But as I understand it BMW cannot make the claim that it is Thatcham-approved, or (same thing) meets their criteria, until Thatcham has tested it. If you look at the Thatcham site you find a list of such systems. Moreoever, from time to time they issue a 'delete list' of systems they approved in the past but no longer approve. We've discussed this (like so much else) somewhere way back in the thread.