The Path of Least Resistance – Electronic Parking Brakes

The current trend for OEMs not to fit a Steering Column Lock or a locking transmission pawl (transmission lock) and instead, rely on the electronic parking brake systems to meet the Anti-Theft Regulations, has led to a spate of low tech, push away thefts, particularly in Italy.

Due to a change in UNECE R116, the snappily titled "Uniform provisions concerning the protection of motor vehicles against unauthorized use", car manufacturers can now choose to fit either a key operated steering lock, a key operated transmission lock or a "secure" system that locks the braking system.

On face value, this is a perfectly reasonable approach to take. Steering locks are expensive, heavy and can cause packaging issues for designers considering knee impact, transmission locking pawls are an additional part and therefore a cost, plus, the majority of new vehicles are fitted with an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) system.

Some background information

In the 1970’s, UNECE mandated the fitment of either a steering or transmission lock. It was an early attempt to make car thief that much harder. Before this, cars were fitted with a key operated ignition switch (no locking function) and before that, a start button or switch (ironically this is where we are now, just with the addition of some electronic authentication).

Over the past 10 years or so, there has been a steady reduction in the fitment of steering locks, as OEMs strive to save costs by rationalizing the number of parts required and reduce manufacturing complexity. As more and more OEMs offer fewer models with a manual transmission, and with the increase in EV and Hybrid models, the fitment of steering column locks has reduced further.

Because of continued cost pressures and seemingly the belief by some engineers that mechanical anti-theft devices are costly and no longer needed, it appears that secure transmission locks are also now being deleted. Meaning that the security of some very expensive new models are relying on a so called "secure" parking brake to prevent theft (Note: secure transmission lock = internal protected locking pawl controlled via the vehicle key. Not a shift lock).

The constant pressure in the automotive industry for design engineers to save costs and delete non customer facing technology, has left many new models open to a simple theft attack.

Why is a "Secure EPB" less secure than a SCL or a Transmission Lock Pawl?

Good security relies on a well thought out layered approach and, as OEMs remove some layers, it’s only logical it will make the whole system less secure. For example, a strong, well designed door locking mechanism in combination with an alarm, will act as a layer of protection to prevent a thief from accessing the cabin. Importantly, it also acts as a layer of protection, restricting physical access to the steering or transmission lock, the coded components that make up the immobiliser, the alarm control ECU and the OBD port.

The biggest (and most obvious) problem with only using the electronic parking brake as the method of preventing the wheels from rotating, is it's easily bypassed from the outside of the vehicle. The locked cabin layer has been removed, so it’s accessible and the thief can take his time to remove the brakes without being detected.

It is also very difficult to develop a parking brake system that is secure and comes in on budget, One of the main restrictions is that unlike a steering lock or transmission pawl, the brakes a regularly serviced part, so need to removed easily.

CCTV show thieves, simply sliding under the rear of the car and releasing the parking brakes from the rear wheels. They then gain access to the driver’s seat (often through the driver’s door window) and, by using a second car from behind, push the car away with one of the thieves steering the target car.

Currently this is a particular problem in Southern Italy but, these types of simple theft methods, often spread quickly to other areas and countries.

In an age where sophisticated electronic tools, devices and software are being used to steal vehicles and some countries are even introducing specific legislation to make this equipment illegal, this attack is very simple and direct. It’s just a matter of removing the actuator and winding the calipers back to remove the brakes. 

So although it makes perfect economic sense to homologate a vehicle with only an electronic Parking Brake, it meets the regulatory requirements. However, it makes no sense from a real world, Anti-Theft perspective as it is not secure.

Innocent mistake or deliberate economic decision?

Certainly some newcomers to established markets such as Europe and North America, could be forgiven for only following the regulation and not fully understanding the risks in the "real world".

Everybody else however, doesn’t need to look too far back in history to know that this fitment policy can only end in disaster.  

Cadilac Escalade – No Steering Lock

In 2010, GM updated and refreshed the Escalade, Tahoe, Yukon and Sierra models. Part of this update was to delete the steering column lock as it was "no longer necessary" and only rely on a "microchipped key" system. This led to the Cadilac Escalade hitting the top half of the top 10 most stolen list and plenty of negative media publicity.

2011 - HLDI Most Stolen Vehicle in America

After 12 -18 months of trying defend its decision and placing the blame on owners for not parking in sensible areas or purchasing a secondary security system, GM released the 2012 MY with an "Advanced Theft Deterrent" system. GM actually released a statement to highlight that they designed the latest model to be "harder to steal".

GM said "The SUV currently includes a system to prevent the vehicles from being hotwired and a steering column lock that makes it more difficult for thieves to push the vehicles away or load them on to flat-bed trucks".

"In addition, the 2012 Escalade will include sensors that set off an alarm when they detect a change in angle that would occur if the vehicle is being towed or being jacked up, along with sensors that sound alarms when windows are broken, a new wheel lock system and an improved steering column lock".

So in the end, instead of reducing cost by deleting the steering lock, they ended up spending more money on developing and fitting additional anti-theft systems and, reinstating the missing layer with an improved Steering Lock. GM marketing dept also spent a lot of time and money on a large PR and media campaign designed to win back customer trust.

Kia Boyz

Kia Boyz challenge – this is a craze limited to the US and driven by social media (TikTok). SBD Automotive first highlighted this trend in the quarterly Global Research Report and have been reporting the huge rise in the theft of Kia and Hyundai cars ever since.

The trend was first seen in Milwaukee in 2021. It affects a number of models, built between 2011 to 2020 that are fitted with a poorly designed and weak mechanical steering lock. To save cost, it was decided not to fit these models with an engine immobiliser, as the US regulation (FMVSS 114) doesn’t require both systems.  

This flaw in the Anti-Theft system was discovered and the weakness eventually advertised on TikTok. Groups of youths would steal the cars for something exciting to do – "Joyriding". The theft method was simple, they would enter the cabin of the car (smash the rear passenger door window and activate the interior door handle) remove the steering column cowl, break the lock with some grips and use a USB cable plug to turn the ignition switch. This would allow the engine to start as the immobiliser layer had been removed. The "Challenge" was then to drive the car as fast and as recklessly possible and upload the video on to TikTok.

According to statistics released by HLDI (Highway Loss Data Institute) Theft insurance claims for vulnerable models increased more than 1000% between the first half of 2020 and the first half of 2023. However, the craze not only caused a dramatic rise in thefts, but also some disastrous crashes and losses of life.

Many will say that this theft epidemic was caused by The Kia Boyz and their "Challenge" and the videos being shared on TikTok. However, it could also be argued that it was caused by Kia/Hyundai, placing cost saving over vehicle security. In fact this is what many local officials thought and saw the company being sued by a number of States.

The final cost of this policy is not known as there are still a number of outstanding law suits to settle. But, below is the latest estimate (end of 2025). This doesn’t include the PR and marketing costs to try and repair the damage and rebuild the brands trust and reputation.

• Class-Action Law Suit Settlement ($200+ Million): In May 2023, both Kia and Hyundai agreed to a settlement estimated of over $200 million to cover roughly 9 million vehicles. Of the $200 million, $145 million was allocated to owners for out-of-pocket expenses, including total losses, damage, and insurance deductibles.
  

• Repair and Security Costs ($500+ Million in 2025): Reports state that the companies agreed to pay a further of $500 million as part of a multi-state settlement to install security fixes (zinc sleeves around the ignition cylinder) to approximately 9 million cars.
  

• The companies are also having to settle additional claims for damage to properties, increases in insurance premiums and legal costs. These are likely to run into the tens of millions.
  

Many may say that this theft epidemic was caused by youngsters stealing cars and sharing videos on TikTok. However, I would argue that Kia/Hyundai caused the issue, placing cost saving over vehicle security.

Furthermore, I believe that many OEMs understand only too well that this is an insecure design, but are willing to take the risk to save cost. I have come to this conclusion because certain OEMs still fit a SCL and/or transmission pawl to European RHD models, that is, models destined for the UK market.

This is because the security of these models will be assessed by Thatcham, the UK Insurance Industry research centre. Although some OEMs, who are not targeting the highest insurance security rating, fit limited protection to prevent the EPB control harness from being accessed. OEMs who target higher ratings and real world protection, still invest in the additional Anti-Theft layer for the UK market.

In conclusion, it can only be a matter of time before OEMs see the error in deleting Steering or Transmission locks in favour of just an EPB.

"I / SBD have always believed that an Anti-Theft package needs to start with a clear vision and internal target that understands the risks. The target needs to not only consider legislation and customer requirements, but understand real world theft techniques. It needs to understand the market it is going into, follow a layered approach and be secure by design"

罗布·海尔

EMEIA Anti-Theft

SBD Automotive

To explore how these trends impact your strategy and operations, we invite you to get in touch for a deeper discussion. Email info@sbdautomotive.com to connect with one of our team of experts to discuss your requirements further.