The mobile phone has been a significant driver of street robbery and will continue to be an issue as the handset becomes increasingly multi-functional, and valuable. We have been working closely with the industry on this. Rapidly changing technology means that other ‘hot’ products such as Sat Navs and iPods have also been an issue. I am concerned that we keep up with technology, that we anticipate and act on future ‘hot products’ before they become a problem.
What designs could be added to these products, to make them less attractive to thieves?
Housing has got to be about the ‘hottest’ product in the south east with all the new dwellings the government wants built here in the next 20 years.
I am sure the Home Office and CLG feel that they have provided local authorities with pretty comprehensive planning guidance and policies to enable security to be an integral of building safe sustainable places as required by PPS1 but are they aware that due to budget cuts and targets which reward detections rather than preventions, most forces have nowhere enough CPDA staff to scrutinises the many planning applications this is generating – and in then in almost every case, to have to go to battle with developers who are reluctant to erode their profits by spending money on security hardware that is not compulsory?
The headlong rush to highly permeable estate layouts and hiding car parking away behind dwellings in order to declutter the street scene and make neighbourhoods more easily walkeable is having the unintended consequence of increasing crime and disorder – however direct the footpath running between high fences along the back of houses, it will not be used by residents if it feels unsafe and is colonised by the anti-social element.
There is much scope for better joined up policies between government departments (Home Office trying to design out crime and CLG promoting design principles which are known to make crime more likely!)- and how refreshing it would be if the government were to place itself under the Crime and disorder Act duty that is placed on police and local authorities to all it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.
Fully concur Dave Stubbs comments posted. I am currently undertaken a national research project as a Director of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance (ESVA) and on behalf of the ACPO Crime Prevention Design Group to look at the implications of ‘conflicting policies’ between government departments which are already driving up vehicle crime in new housing developments.
The research builds on a piece of work undertaken by Martin Huscroft in Devon and Cornwall; will include examples form each of the ten UK regions and without pre-empting the outcome my best guess is that the paper will show that we have much to learn, and much to re-prioritise before we’ll actually design vehicle crime out of new housing developments.
My intention is to present the paper to Barry Webb at the Home Office on completion. The findings will be presented to the ALO/CPDA National Training Event in January 2008.
Surely it is just as important to consider existing products that suddenly become popular as it is to consider new “Hot” products?
A classic example of this is the bicycle, which, after years of relative insignificance has once again become much more popular as a means of transport, and thus, much more attractive to the thief. This is an example where a means of transport has been promoted as part of a number of central and local government initiatives, mainly around sustainability and health, apparently without thinking through all of the consequences of a growth of use by the commuting public. Thus we find a growth in crime, not mitigated by designed in security in new machines, or significant improvement in parking facilities for bikes at transport hubs or destinations. I know ground-breaking research and some experimental interventions have been undertaken at an academic level, but I see a need for this to be undertaken on a larger scale.
In the wider sense, I think planning behind new policies which are intended to bring about substantial changes in public behaviour or product use should include an element which considers likely criminal consequences in greater detail.
I was interested to read Mike Franklin’s comments above regarding conflicting policies and intitiatives and their impact. I have recently attended a Cycle Touring Club (CTC) seminar at which Bikeoff, an intitiative to reduce cycle theft located within the Design Against Crime Research Centre, was advocating development of secured by design standards or similar for cycle parking and cycling infrastructure with the aim of reducing cycle theft. Many of the cycling promotion practitioners (local cycling officers)where supportive of this in principle but also felt further consultation and collaboration was neccessary in relation to the guidance that already exists in relation to residential developments.
There where several examples cited of residential building developments which had, in response to crime prevention design recommendations, put up barriers around residential developments that inadvertantly ‘cut off’ residents from cycle lanes that had intended to provide safe access to local schools. One particularly compelling example was of a child that lived 200 yards from their school but as a consequence of the area in which he lived being ‘enclosed’ to reduce permeability now had to travel about 2 miles to get to school. Whilst I accept there are always winners and losers within the context of every intervention of this nature, for me, this highlights the need for both user requirements and anti-abuser (crime reductive) requirements to be adressed in a balanced and integrated way to be of greatest benefit to the communities these policies/interventions seek to serve. I look forward to reading the paper that Mike Franklin describes as I think that mediating these sometimes conflicting social/ethical drivers i.e. sustainable transport vs designing against crime is essential to ensure the greatest benefits to the communities in which these policies are implemented.
Focussing on the specific question in relation to ‘Hot Property’ and technological items, I feel the essence towards reducing theft of such items is one of basic crime reduction strategy and that is ‘Reducing the pay-off’ to likely offenders. The introduction of personal identification numbers to such items would assist in reducing the high volume of these thefts on a level of unorganised criminality. In addition, mandatory registration on a National data base (Immobilise has established itself as a useful data base for recording all identifiable items)at the point of sale would assist in acting as a deterent and also as an aid to detecting crime. There is a growing concern that the upsurge in popularity of the ‘plasma’ TV sets will be one of the next most popular items. By way of crime reduction, a start up screen giving advice on property marking and security products could be introduced as part of the installation programmes.
Camera phones could be programmed to take a picture at random intervals if it senses it has been stolen. I don’t know how it would sense this, though–maybe it needs to be unlocked once per day by a code.
GPS enabled cell phones could email their owners their location.
what about a fingerprint scanner? The user has to ’scan’ their fingerprint before using? After a certain amount of time of non-use, the device locks. scanners are usually small enough to be incorporated on mobile devices, but need to be quick enough so that users aren’t delayed in using the mobile device.
I think IMMOBILIZE the police registration scheme doesn’t work to help locate or protect property because
(a) it has no visual deterrent – or way of marking property to make it unsaleable to another
(b) relies on people knowing where there registrations numbers are – not everyone can find their ipod or bike registration numbers
(c) has no publicity campagin to general public to inspire them to use it
(d) also i gather not all police officers can easily access the information on it – so if your property is found – i am not convinced it is always checked against this source – but might be wrong about this
perhaps someone else knows better? Certainly warrants a review…. a better more instant system could be set up to protect hot proudcts with retail and other outlets and the public at large
In relation to hot products environmental issues definitely need to be considered. The home office needs to understand this along with the fact that stolen goods are a greater form of
planned obsolesence than fashion, and often driven by drug crime. On top of this, the costs of policing crime, particualrly drug related crime are just not sustainable, nor is the use of materials to build the objects which are stolen and then because of insurance markup generate the purchase of even more object.
The true costs of crime – not just financial – need to also be understood as those issues which impact heavily on communities. These costs far outweigh those counted along monetary lines. For this reason, joined up thinking is essential and we need to make a greater connection between crime and the other big issues of the day, such as sustainability, which those of us under 25 have serious concerns about.
Re mobile phones ;-
why not include a personal alarm that activates when the wrong access code is dialed three times.
or attached to a wrist strap as personal alarms have.
It does not matter how well a product is designed to reduce its value to an offender if the design feature is only an option. Mobile phones already have PIN protected features to protect the SIM card and the phone separately, how many people actually bother to activate those features? Some TVs and DVD recorders have a facility to enter a PIN and owner details that are required if the product is ever disconnected from the mains, again how many users will bother? Various manufacturers of security products already have alarms that can be fitted to mobile phones but in these days of fashion dictating lifestyles, I have doubts that many are sold to the actual victim target demographic . You can take a horse to water…………..
Hello,
My name is David and I am the owner of Own Defense. I am involved with Non Lethal Self Defense. Like most people I am not an experts in karate or some type of fighting technique. You may not own a gun or simply don’t like guns. So for the most part we would like to have a way to protect ourself and love ones from harm. That is where Non lethal defense products come into play, such as pepper spray with a UV dye that could be used in a police lineup. Stun gun that would make the attacker muscles go wild with no lasting effects. Do you travel a lot. The personal travel alarm are a very popular items that hang from the door know and sounds an alarm when the knob is being turn. If you would like to find out more about these items and much more check out my business and see the different ways of protecting yourself from harm.