[The main thing I use padlocks for is to make stealing my trailers too inconvenient for the casual thief.]

Round here we say "a padlock will keep out an honest man."

Wonder if you can claim for the insurance that the port is disabled.

Hmmm. Interesting. More interesting than many comments so far.

(Submitter here.)

You could make that claim.

Whether the insurance company chose to believe you is one question that is absolutely and entirely at their discretion (note that in the original description that they were refusing new business, or in some cases annual renewal of the insurance ; they are under no obligation to accept new business, and if you have existing insurance with them which they choose to discontinue, they're only obliged to return premiums paid in advance and to give you a reasonable time - several days to a week or so - to arrange new insurance if they cancel an existing policy).

They might, if they wanted the administrative hassle, send out a vehicle inspector to assess your vehicle's modifications, and then insure the vehicle under "showman's vehicle" terms. Needless to say, you pay for the inspector's report, every year. Or, if you had the system removed/ disabled by a dealer, then they'd want the garage's and manufacturer's certification of the modifications - just as if you'd lowered the suspension and changed the 1.5L engine for a 12L F1 race engine.

Or ... you could tell them you'd made the changes without having actually made the changes. That's when it gets really interesting. Attempting to obtain a service by fraudulent misrepresentation is a criminal offence. It also invalidates your insurance. So, if your vehicle is stolen, and your lies (in writing, above your signature, dated) are found out, then you're liable to unlimited fines, a criminal record (e.g. many countries will now refuse you a visa, for the rest of your life), jail time. AND, because you were driving around with fraudulently-obtained insurance, you were driving with NO insurance. Which almost always means that you'll lose your driving license for several years.

The action that the insurance companies are taking is designed to make people either remove the keyless systems, or to take the vehicles off the road. They clearly don't want to have the business. They're doing this for their convenience, not for the convenience of their customers.

The next step - which I'd expect in about 6 months - will be to raise the cost of insurance above the cost of the vehicle. Which is a very clear way of saying "we don't want this business - it's too troublesome".

"it might take some coordination among the various agencies."

Various other companies also charter cargo planes if it's mostly supplies that need to be delivered. Or smaller planes could be chartered from various other airports, such as in southern Europe or Morocco. The argument that regular passenger service needs to be maintained so that professional medical help can get into and rotate out of the affected countries doesn't really seem to hold water.

make sure to leave a snake in your car. It doesn't even have to be a big or poisonous snake.

... your car will be broken into by the RSPCA, assisted by police officers, since it's obvious that you're cruelly mistreating the snake by exposing it to such cold weather.

taking out any family members that she comes across.

This is Britain, not America. Burglary with violence is an extremely rare occurrence. Probably less than a one-in-a-million event per household.

Hell - our police forces have to work hard to find enough officers to volunteer for firearms training.

It's easier enough to get into a standard auto keylock.

If your vehicle is more than about 25 years old, that may well be the case (though it was getting rapidly harder even then). Newer cars are harder to the point that car theft for entire cars has dropped off a cliff (thefts continue for breaking for parts).

The story is about Britain, where we have a thing called RAIN, and it's cousin, RUST. A 25 year old vehicle is pretty uncommon ; a 40 (+something) vehicle is considered a classic, attracting negligible running tax because there are so few of them.

... or not, any more. Which is the entire point of the article. Not only do you not get the vehicle replaced if it gets stolen, but if you drive it on the public highway before it gets stolen, you're liable to arrest, jail and loss of your privilege of driving.

I don't know about your car, but the remote-opening central (un-)locking of my current car can be over-ridden by pressing a button on the driver's door arm rest. [Ker-lunk] and all doors and boot are locked. Which I have used on occasions when suspicious people have been doing the "wash yer winders" trick at traffic lights.

None of which helps you with someone approaching you when you're getting into the car in the parking lot / multi-storey park / street / whatever. Our kidnap security instructors at work refer to that as situational awareness. If you don't have that, you're fucked no matter how secure your vehicle is.

Submitter here.

At least in the U.K. which is where the article is about. Basically underground car parks at private residences don't for practical purposes exist in the U.K., which is why the article *NEVER* mentions them at all.

By pure coincidence, my family home did have underground parking. But outside residents of that street, I haven't ever met a private residence that had an underground garage. Those garages were built into the houses in approximately 1860 to provide stabling for the horses and storage for the carriage. That they're underground is purely a quirk of the arrangement of streets and a moderately steep hillside.

Not quite as rare as hen's teeth. There are probably more carpenters carving rocking horse turds than there are developmental biologists playing fast an loose with the anatomy of developing chicks, which is how you can give hens teeth. (Seriously - you can. See my signature - I have a non-passing interest in such things.)

Thirty years ago or more, when all cars were equally stealable, you could charge the same theft premium for all of them because they were all equally easy to steal and there is a relatively fixed amount of theft in total.

The theft premium was always proportional to the value of the vehicle, not a flat rate.

You might be able to get "legal minimum" or "third-party and fire" insurance for your keyless car, but the threat from the insurance companies is that of simply refusing to accept any new (or renewed) insurance on these vehicles, making it impossible to legally drive them on the public highway.

Under British driving laws, insurance against injuring other people is mandatory. And this "third party" leg of the insurance is the largest chunk of the insurance cost. You can choose to vary if you have insurance against fire, or theft, with varying levels of excess, but you've got to have the "third party" insurance.

The story isn't about the US.

Submitter here

In a few months short of 25 years of driving, I've driven vehicles with an automatic gear box on approximately 5 occasions, totalling perhaps 100 miles. I've owned 8 or 9 cars, and not one of them has been an automatic.

Better not miss that payment then.

No Insurance?

No car loan..

Cash only customers...

You are probably not reading the article : this is about a British system, so British law applies, not the law of whichever country you're anonymously cowarding in.

In Britain, unless you're the government, if you do not have insurance for your vehicle it is
(1) illegal to have it on the public road, stationary or static.
(2) illegal to drive it on the public road

Questions of car loans or cash purchases are not relevant. Consider someone who owns, outright one of these vehicles. Tomorrow is the day that your vehicle insurance is due for renewal (for driving - British vehicle insurance doesn't necessarily cover theft or damage, they're extras to the legal minimum requirements). So, you grip your credit card in one hand and telephone the insurance company to pay for another year (or month) of insurance.

And the insurance company say "we don't want your business". And every other insurance company also refuses to take your money.

You now have a car which you still own. But you can't drive it - legally - and you can't even leave it immobile on the public highway. Nor can you pay tax on it (which also means that you have got to take it off the public highway). Oh - you can move it between pieces of private ground on a properly insured vehicle - flatbed or trailer. If that's any use to you.

Rate limiting would make ddosing a country club parking lot lots of fun.

Hold on a couple of seconds while I get the microphone in position ....

OK, could you repeat that, with a good chesty "Mwahahahahahaha!" at the end. Thank'ee.

Submitter here.

I've never been a fan of the keyless car design. But if I wanted a new car, I had little choice.

There is really that little choice of vehicles in your country?

I didn't think that North Korea had Internet access.

Actually, we were car shopping a couple of weeks back, so I'm just slightly more interested in vehicles at the moment than I am normally. I'd better do some checking, just in case - by accident - I've ordered such a car. The idea never occurred to me, because the vehicle we test-drove used keys.

Tum-te-googly-tum ... foreign safety kit - not a worthwhile deal as it doesn't include a fire extinguisher ... oh, poofs!! It's got a "hill hold function" - what am I going to do with my left foot now? ... but no mention of keyless locking at all on that range. . Good. I'll double check, but that looks good. No sign of this being a problem we'll have to attend to for the next cycle, and I'll try to remember for the next vehicle cycle too. Maybe the bugs will be squashed by 2020.