This is against the law in WV and Ohio.(more laws)

[Harleymsn]

</font><font color="blueclass=small">( Based on all of these laws would autostart not break the laws of most states? Even though the doors are locked and the keys are removed the vehcile is running unattended. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif )</font>

Actually, if properly installed, you will find that you can NOT drive the car away without inserting the key, thereby making it safe. As a retired Police officer, I can tell you that nearly every state has a similar law. Another point to make here is that should you leave the car or truck running, keys in it and doors unlocked, your insurance company CAN refuse to pay. There was also a case in NY state several years ago, where a vehicle was stolen under these circumstaces. The theif was a 14 yr old, who promply ran over a pedestrian. The owner of the vehicle was sued in civil court by the pedestrians estate for negligence. The owner lost the case. His insurance company refused to pay and was found not responsible by the appellate court. The owner filed bankruptcy and learned a very hard lesson.
I agree with this law, what I find STUPID is the person who does not have the common sense to at least LOCK THE DOORS.

 

[WhyNot]

Here in N.J. you can not let a vehicle idle for more than three minutes. Doesn't matter if you are in it or not. Of course there are exception's like truck's with a sleeper cab, that use the motor for aux power and equip, etc. This became law last year and the cop's love to cruise the parking lot's looking for violator's. Cop's seem to go easy on utility company vehicle's for most thing's except for this one.

 

[fenneran]

Bird,

I'm not disagreeing with your reasons. I understand that every crime is a drain on the resources of the police force. That being said, isn't it also true that even if I did leave my keys in the ignition and it got stolen, it was the guy who stole it who caused the expenses? I take issue with the idea that it is my fault that someone else broke the law. This is in the same vein that people used to blame a woman for how she dressed, saying she caused the man to violate her. I think it's bunk. Again, I understand the reasons for the laws...because people don't take responsibility for themselves anymore, but I do not agree with it. In the earlier message where the cop jumped out and took the brother's van, the driver did break this particular law and would have been liable for the fine or other penalty associated with it. But if I was him, I'd have sued the cop for breaking and entering, grand theft auto and anything else I could have thought of. Just because the keys are there, does not make it legal to take it.

<getting off soapbox now>

 

[txdon]

<font color="blue"> "...leave it idling unattended..." </font>

I like that law. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

With all the dumb people around I NEED PROTECTION.
If that law would have been in effect a while back I might not have had an accident while driving a Houston ambulance. A mother let her car Idle while she went inside to pay for the gas and her child slipped it in gear and crashed me, an apartment fence, and two other vehicles! The SMART mom came running out yelling that she was going to sue ME for crashing with her child????????????? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

By the way, there were no injuries. Houston needs more laws.
/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I take issue with the idea that it is my fault that someone else broke the law )</font>

I agree, Frank, but how far can your carry that idea? Or maybe I should say, "How much can we afford?" You shouldn't even need a key for your car. If you don't take it out, why not just have a starter button? And you shouldn't need any locks or keys for your house.

Now if we had a way to stop all the crimes, a place to put all the criminals, or if we could afford to have a cop on each corner, we could go back to those days. But we know we can't do that so we have to decide what measures we'll take and how to best utilize the resources we have.

And, yes, I know someone has to make those decisions and we're not all going to agree with all the decisions made. We certainly have some laws that I don't agree with, and I can think of a few laws we don't have that I think should exist, and I'll bet nearly everyone could say the same. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Incidentally, my first "salaried" job was temporary, parttime, substitute mail carrier in a small town. One of the things I did most was deliver parcel post and, for that purpose, the Post Office had a leased old Jeep panel wagon with no driver's door and no key; just a toggle switch and a starter button. When not in use, it was parked at the dock behind the Post Office. It also had no muffler, so everyone in town was familiar with it. Late one night the town's lone police officer heard it start up and head north up the highway so he caught it (and the thief) very quickly. And that's when they had a new ignition switch, with key, installed and we had to keep the key inside the Post Office when the wagon was not in use. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[turnkey4099]

A couple of things:

Leaving keys in vehicle/non pay for stolen. Yes, my neighbor did that. New (only a few months) 3/4 ton PU with full load of professional electrician tools. Keys in it, stolen, insurance co: "tough, no pay".

Being sued by someone because you facilitate the damage such as leaving keys in vehicle). Yep. It is a point of law called "contributory negligence". It can (and is) used to either deny coverage altogether or reduce the pay out.

Spokane Wa put on a media blitz explaining the law at the beginning of the cold season and then ran patrols looking for unattended running vehicles. Fine $105. They did this after several cars were stolen on the first few days of the cold snap.

For those who think enforcement of this law is wrong. That's fine by me as long as you agree not to report the vehicle stolen thus wasting police resources.

Harry K

 

[turbo36]

I'm all for personal freedom but when your personal freedom costs me time or money then I question that "Freedom". If you want to leave your keys in the car you shouldn't expect me to pay for it through higher insurance rates or local property taxes for more police. Yo want to drive wwithout a seat belt or drive a motorcycle fine but don't expect me to pay your medical bills because you wanted your freedom.
My dad always said go ahead and poke the dog but don't cry when he bites you /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[guyrj33]

On the surface this sounds rather selfish. Maybe if we passed a law forbiding anyone from leaving their house, we'd all be safer and wouldn't need to worry about auto theft either.
----------------
I'm all for personal freedom but when your personal freedom costs me time or money then I question that "Freedom".
------------

 

[turbo36]

Why do you think it's selfish? My point is I go ahead and do what ever bad behavior you want, smoke, drink excessively, ignore your health, marry your sister, lick your finger and stick it in a light socket because you get a thrill, I don't care, but don't expect me to pay for it or change my life style because someone doesn't want to follow common sense. Another thing my dad said was "rules are for the rule breakers because the smart person knows how to act". Think about how much money this society would save if we all followed the traffic laws, didn't cheat on our taxes, followed good saftey advice etc. etc.?

 

[fenneran]

Great story Bird. I agree that there is a cost in taking this to its logical conclusion. I do not have a problem with the insurance companies not paying a claim if you left your key in the ignition, by the way. Surprized? Don't be. They are a private company doing business. If I want them to be my carrier and cover me in a loss, I have to abide by their rules. It's a contract between us. For an extreme example: if the policy states that I have to keep a spare key with them in case of emergency, then I have a choice to make. Do I agree to the terms, or do I look someplace else? If I agree, then I am bound by those terms.

<stepping back onto soapbox>
A law dictating this, on the other hand, is a fish of a different color. (in my opinion, of course) I'm just saying that if I choose to leave my key in the ignition, or even leave the motor running, it will probably (in most urban areas) get stolen, but that's my choice to take that chance. I cannot demand someone else pay for my stupidity, but it is still my choice. If you say the laws are such that you cannot leave a car running with children in the car and unattended otherwize, I can deal with that. There's a compelling reason for tat law. but one simply to keep me from being stupid? Sorry, I can't agree to those.
<jumping off and running>

Respectfully,