Still speaking of Skinner.......
The unpopularity of safety is well known. Seat belts were available and familiar in '34,
but not installed in cars until the government forced the issue in '67. Even then, Detroit made the seat belts aversive and punitive.
The unpopularity of security is not discussed often.
I noticed this theftproof '34 Ford truck in a Collectible Auto article:
This theft-proof ignition lock was standard on Ford products and Nashes through the 30s and 40s. Maybe a few others, but never
GM or Chrysler cars.
Ford gave it up in '49, and Nash in '50. Through the '50s and '60s all American cars were open invitations to thieves. A simple hotwire clip, plus a little dexterity, could start any car in a few seconds. GM made the thief's job super-easy with semi-lockable ignitions on Chevy and Buick. You could drive without a key if you wanted to, so the thief didn't even need a hotwire.
Euro carmakers recognized the American preference and dumbed down their cars for American use. My '63 R8 had a steering-lock ignition ...
... but the steering-lock mechanism was removed in the US edition. VW had a similar lock for Euro drivers, but placed the ignition in the dashboard for Americans.
Why go to all that trouble? Making the same lock for everyone is cheaper.
Was this a law? Or just a recognition that thieves OWNED AMERICA?
The '49 dividing line may be significant.
After the Deepstate coup in '46, government and media focused intensely on "rising crime" which wasn't really rising. We were supposed to let FBI handle the "rising crime".
More precisely, we were supposed to let FBI handle rising the crime.
We know that FBI's real job is creating crime and spawning criminals. Parkinson. Make a problem and "solve" it in a way that accelerates the problem so you can "solve" it in a way that accelerates the problem so you can "sol
Was the elimination of car security an official part of this Parkinson positive feedback loop? Or did Euro carmakers simply recognize that USA has always been owned by pirates?