Nov 29th 2011, 19:41 by H.G. | LONDON
HAVE you have ever seen a sticker on the back of a tradesman's van saying “No tools or valuables stored in this van over night”? I’ve seen them in London for a while and started wondering whether they actually deter thieves or simply draw attention to the fact that the driver is a nervous tool owner.
My reasoning goes as following. First think of the van owner: there is a small cost to obtaining a sticker but this is basically inconsequential. There is a large cost to the owner of removing his heavy tools every night and taking them to a safe place. Even if he intends to, he may forget or chose not to on any given night. Now consider the thief: there is a cost every time he breaks into a van—the police might come and catch him plus there is the effort of the break in itself—therefore he chooses his target vans carefully.
There are two types of van owner: those with tools and those without. Both might conceivably put a sticker up. Those with tools fear for their safety (and worry that they may forget to remove them). Those without might worry their van might be broken into by those seeking tools. A break-in is costly to both types.
Consider the thief’s reaction to this. Most if not all sticker owners are tool owners, and nervous ones (which suggests their tools may be valuable) at that. The sign may have the added effect of lulling those displaying it into a false sense of security. On any one night a decent percentage of them may have forgotten to remove their tools or chosen not to out of laziness. A good strategy might therefore be to target only vans with deterrent stickers as the success rate will be higher amongst this group.
I ran my musings past Jeff Ely, a game theorist at Northwestern University. He added that the one effect you can count on is that the sticker brings to mind "tools" and "removing tools". There are different types of thief as well. Would-be thieves who might never have thought that there might be tools in the van are now cued to the opportunity. But equally, those who might have never considered that tools could be removed must now consider the possibility. Mr Ely says the sticker is definitely a negative because the first category of thief is now more likely to break in while the second category will pause for a moment, realise that even though it was possible to remove the tools, it is probably not something the van owner would actually do and will go ahead and break in.
In this blog, our correspondents consider the fluctuations in the world economy and the policies intended to produce more booms than busts. Adam Smith argued that in a free exchange both parties benefit, and this blog's aim is to encourage a free exchange of views on economic matters.
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I think, all vans being equal, vans with that sign are less likely to have tools in them. The van owner would feel stupid if he put the sign on and subsequently didn't take the tools out and got them stolen. And even if the thief didn't believe the van with the sign was less likely to have tools, he would feel really stupid if he broke into a van with that sign and then found no tools. Basically people imagine how stupid they would feel if they did something contradicting what a sign dictates is their best move, while also imagining the other person feeling the same way.
And if the sticker says "Tools or valuables are stored in this van over night"? Since it states the opposite of the analyzed statement, will it have the opposite effect as well, and thus reduce the theft risk? :)
Methinks that the main conclusion reached is that great apes are curious and will be attracted to anything unusual.
What about similar signs in stores that say "Safe Cannot Be Opened By Employees" or "Cashier Does Not Have More Than $20"?
I think that such signs actually work as intended because petty criminals are more often opportunistic rather than careful strategizers. In a parking lot of 20 cars, a thief won't break into all 20 to find out what is inside -- they will look inside (as best they can) to see what is the most valuable and easily obtained loot, and smash and grab. Breaking into a vehicle on speculation of what might be inside is not the way a thief operates, since each opportunity represents a chance of getting caught, and they cannot afford to waste opportunities on empty targets.
The same goes with houses that have the burglar alarm signs posted. Thieves look for the easiest "sure thing" they can find, and if you have a "Protected by XYZ" in the window and your neighbor does not, it is more likely that your neighbor gets hit while you get skipped.
The theory of how theives will behave is all very well, but I'd like to see it tested.
What if the thief thinks that nervous tool owners may also take further measures to protect their tools/vans by maybe installing car alarms etc as well.
My van has a sign. " Member of the Cretins Motorcycle Club, Support Involuntary Tattoos for Non-Cretins "
Similar to " If you drink, don't drive."
@Dian Cecht
'Similar to " If you drink, don't drive."'
Slightly tangential, but in Japan, this phrase is modified to read "If you drink, don't ride. If you ride, don't drink", leading to some very interesting (and wholly unintended) interpretations...
How about a photo of a big Anaconda with a message "This is MY home"?
I thought the recent "cool thing to do" was to remove the driver's door window and replace it with clear plastic sheeting.
Then someone at work told me, "That's the sign of a former GPS owner."
Regards
Oddly enough, the next article on my RSS feed:
Security Systems as a Marker for High-Value Targets
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/11/security_system.html
"Tools removed - Pit Bull not"
---
My bumper sticker says, "Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy."
Maybe in 2013... "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for anyone."
Regards
Hey, what happened to my comment? You're not allow to use the Chinese language? No wonder folks from China regularly accuse the Economist of being racist ignorant imperialist running dogs.
Anyway, there's an ancient Chinese proverb that speaks exactly to the situation described. I can't write it in the original for obvious reason, but a rough translation goes something like:
Here lies not three hundred taels of silver
Your neighbor A Ji didn't steal them either
The Economist only allows comments in English; this is not discrimination against Chinese.
If you had been able to write in Chinese, I would have been able to read it.
It is relevant and funny so Economist, good show in forcing cheryshevsky to post it in English. Now that s/he has done so, you may permit it ot be posted in Chinese.
@European Citizen
I do note that the Economist do normally allow quotes in foreign languages, as long as main body of the text is in English. This is particularly the case at Johnson, where foreign language examples are often necessary.
This is why I have purchased a bunch of stickers that say similar things, and whenever I park my car overnight simply affix them to a number of nearby vehicles.
The cost of the sign may not be what you imagine because the van already signals a great deal on its own. Vans tend to be marked with the business name, so a thief interested in tools used in that business already knows. The best strategy would be some proof the tools are gone - maybe even leave it unlocked if not for other thieves. The problem then becomes van design; they tend to be windowless or with small windows that don't allow you to see much inside when a window that let tool thieves see the inside would communicate better. After all, the point of the sign may partly be to fool a thief but it is definitely intended to prevent needless damage to the van. Who wants broken windoms and door locks?
Of course all this only matters after the workday because a sign on a van that's on a car has no meaning that time of day.
To prevent vehicle theft: Get a Car Alarm.
It frightens burglars and every alarm trigger is taken seriously by the community who are summoned with baseball bats and pitchforks to corner the suspect. Everyone knows there are no false alarms.
But seriously, one way to guarantee a theft-proof vehicle: Paint it HOT PINK.
Thieves are exclusively male. Men avoid pink because it may 'turn them gay'--a real, deep-seated fear.
Men will not sit on a pink toilet seat, wear pink pants or a pink cowboy hat. They will not burglar, hot wire and drive a hot pink car. You can even leave the key in the ignition and park it outside of a jail.
It is the ultimate burglar alarm system: Psychology, taboo and fear.
You went in a direction I didn't expect. I thought you were going to say paint it hot pink, then put an SEP field on it.
@connect the Dots
Ah, but would you be prepared to be caught driving a shocking pink car, even if it's a Porsche?