1.

INTRODUCTION
Automobile theft in the United States has skyrocketed to monumental pr0porti'ons in
recent years. Annual vehicle thefts currently total about 1 million and total annual costs to the
public are more than $2 billion. Thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths can" be
attributed annually to accidents involving stolen vehicles.
One .of the many reasons for the escalating theft rate, especially the 70% stolen by amateur
thieves, is the ease with which most cars can be stolen. Despite evidence that the theft rate is
related to the ease of theft, automobiles costing $10i000 and more are still equipped with anti-
theft devices that can be defeated in 2 minutes Or less by an amateur auto thief with little
experience or skill.
Theft protection systems are currently specified by Federal Motor vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 114. This standard requires functional performance which prevents
unauthorized use in the absence of attack on the anti-theft system itself. However, it provides
no definition of attack resistance level. Thus, there is a clear need for the development and
application of improved anti-theft systems and the standards against which they are measured.
The objectives of this program were threefold:
.
The identification and selection of cost-effective, anti-theft performance criteria
which can reduce the vehicle theft rate;
The design, fabrication, and testing of an improved anti:theft system that com plies
with these Criteria; and The development , and rec0mmendationof modifications which
reflect both the performance criteria and the technical realities imposed On designer.
The program consisted of four major task A vehicle theft survey in which a variety of
information sources were tapped to obtain an up to-date picture of theft experience and
technology.
These data were analyzed critically to provide a basis for the identification of
performance criteria. The vehicle theft survey is reported in Chapter 3. ~ Based on the survey
results, important.anti.theft performance criteria were identified and analyzed to determine
their relative effectiveness and importance as bases for design goals and standard
improvements.
 This work is covered in Chapter 4. Using the results of Chapter 4, a design study was
conducted to identify and select design concepts for an improved anti-theft system. The
selected concepts were then developed, fabricated in prototype form, and tested for
effectiveness. These tasks are described in Chapters 5 and 6. 9 Finally, based on the results of
the performance criteria, study, the experience gained, and the design program, existing anti-
theft standards were studied and recommendations for improvements were developed: This
study is covered in Chapter 7. In Chapter 2, the approaches followed in conducting these
tasks and the principal results and conclusions are summarized.
:2, .SUMMAFtY
.
V~HgGL~ THEFT 8UAVF-.Y
The vehicle theft survey consisted of a thorough review of ~ublished literature concerning
v~hicle :theft, as well as interviews with a wide variety of expert sources -- ranging from law
enforcement officialsto thieves -- to obtain unpublished
9 data and opinion.
The results of the survey were then sifted, correlated, and analyzed to isolate the critical
data needed ass basis for the development of effective anti-theft performance data.
In addition to special surveys conducted on limited samples of the theft population, general
theft data are compiled by the FBI and the National Automobile Theft Bureau (NATB), an
insurance industry investigative organization. However, it should be noted that the NATB
records cover only about 20% of all auto thefts and these emphasize the professional segment.
Thus, general conclusions drawn from these data can be erroneous when applied to the
general
theft experience. Moreover, a tendency was noted in the literature to assume that amateur auto
theft results in a low loss due to the fact that the car is recovered. In fact, the best available
data
9
show that amateur theft losses are significant and, when combined withthe higher amateur
theft
rat e, ~ul~ in a greater total loss to the consumer than that due to professional operations.
~cau~ the amateur :is severely limited in his ability to apply costly theft methods, for
example, a tow truck, this segment of the theft experience is the one in which improved anti-
theft
system8 can have the greatest impact. Moreover, it is this segment which contributesthebulk
of
theft-mlat~l accidents. +
9
The principal results and conclusions from.the survey follow:
1. The average annual theft rate in the United States is 7.23 per I000 vehicles, with a
l~Sk rate in Massachusetts of 25 per 1000.
2. The national theft rate for certain specialty auto models appears to be as high as
70 per 1000; the Massachusetts peak for one model was calculated at 198 per 1000.
3. Recovery rate data for the entire United States indicate that about 70% of all
thefts are perpetrated by joy riders or small-time, non-professional strippers. The
remaining 30% can be attributed to professional operations and insurance fraud.
4. The total cost of automobile theft in the United States is at least $2 billion
annually. Accidents costs run to $60 million and criminal justice system costs to
$209 million. The remainder are direct losses to the consumer.
5. Allocation of these costs by type of theft shows that the amateur joy rider and
small.time stripper cost the U.S. consumer between $1.1 and 1.4 billion annually,
9 while professional theft costs run between $0.7 and i billion.
6. The resulting cost of amateur auto theft alone is, thus, $10 to 13 per registered
automobile per year, or $100 to 130 Over a 10-year vehicle life.
7. Although a wide range of theft methods have been used, currently the most
prevalent methods include the use of a "slim-jim, or wire against the doorlock
mechanism, and a slide-hammer against the Steezing-coiumn lock.