|
“Fear of Crime MAG Netherlands and MAG UK— Comparative Surveys from MAG Netherlands and MAG UK” 1
© Elaine Hardy, Dept. of Sociology, University of Warwick.
Introduction
In 2003, two parallel surveys of motorcyclists who were predominantly members of the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG UK) and from the Motorrijders Actie Groep Netherlands (MAG NL)2 were carried out.
The reasons for the surveys were to identify whether there was any difference in perceptions of crime in Britain and the Netherlands and to understand whether security, insurance or government policy on crime reduction had influenced the riders’ perceptions of motorcycle theft.
Finally, whether there were any differences in the type of security or premiums for insurance in each country and whether these differences could be traced to perceptions of fear of crime and the manipulation of crime statistics by the insurance industry.
I demonstrate the impact that Fear of Crime has had in the United Kingdom in comparison to the Netherlands and how the influence of motor insurance has exacerbated this fear of crime.
Findings
In order to determine whether there were any similarities in the profiles of the rider in each country, questions were asked regarding age, sex, salary as well as a series of questions relating to the motorcycle each person owned such as period of ownership, age of bike, engine size, type of security used, insurance details, whether the rider had been involved in accidents or had his/her bike stolen.
The two organisations supporting my research, MAG UK and MAG Netherlands have respectively 10,000 and 5,000 individual members.
There were 451 responses from the MAG Netherlands riders and 845 responses from the MAG UK riders. Furthermore, theft data of two wheeled vehicles for the period 2000 to 2003 was obtained from the Home Office in Britain and from the AVc Foundation in the Netherlands.
The survey of 451 Dutch riders was carried out through the MAG NL website, while 288 of 845 were carried out through the MAG UK website. Although 48% (405) of those responding in the British survey were MAG UK members, a significant proportion of the survey was carried out at MAG UK rallies therefore the non MAG members would have either been affiliated club members, or at least sympathetic to the lifestyle and philosophy of the Motorcycle Action Group.
In the British survey 25 did not respond to the question about membership and one did not respond to the question about age.
Table One: Profile of Dutch and British Riders
N.B. Exchange rate is calculated at €1.4:£1;
In the following two tables the questions identify the profile of the motorcycles that are owned by the riders. Table Two demonstrates that overall, there is a very similar motorcycle usage by both groups of riders. In fact the table demonstrates that the vast majority of riders interviewed had motorcycles with engine sizes from 400 cc upwards in both surveys.
Table Two: Engine size of motorcycles
4 (0.9%) did not respond to this question in the Dutch survey; only one (0.1%) did not respond to this question in the British survey. N.B. engine sizes of less than 125cc generally refer to small motorcycles, scooters or mopeds.
The following table identifies the age of the motorcycles and what is apparent here are the remarkable similarities between the age of the motorcycles owned by the Dutch and British riders. The purpose of this information will become apparent later on in the study, when analyzing the relationship with insurance and theft.
Table Three: Age of motorcycle
The following table refers to the responses to questions regarding the type of policy that the riders had, the period of their no claims discount and the cost of their premiums.
The reason for asking these questions was to determine whether there were any significant differences between the groups and whether these differences could be due to levels of theft or to the perception of theft in either country.
From the survey, there is an apparent difference in the proportion of third party only policies for the Dutch riders (17.9% of all policies) compared to the British riders (3.3% of all policies). As mentioned previously, British motor insurers are not obliged to offer third party only insurance as a stand alone product3 and both the person and the vehicle are insured.
Table Four: Comparison of Type of Insurance for Dutch and British Riders
 |
The following table demonstrates that the Dutch riders made far less claims than their British counter parts in fact there is a difference of 20% for no claims discounts of 5 years or more. However, what is relevant in this discourse is whether those claims equate to theft or are due to accidents or own fault.
In the Netherlands, after a five year period in which the rider has a No Claims Discount (NCD), this is taken into consideration when claiming and a graduated scale is used so that the claimant maintains a proportion of the NCD. Therefore the higher proportion of NCD for those of 5 years or more may include those that have actually claimed.
In the event, 54.3% of the Dutch riders pay €300 (£214) or less for their policies compared to 59.2% who pay £300 or less for their policies. 29.5% of the Dutch riders pay between €301 (£215) and €800 (£571) for their policies while 34.6% of the British riders pay between £301 and £800 for their policies.
Table Five: Period of No Claims Discount
Across the board, the British riders pay far higher insurance premiums than their Dutch counter parts. Although this may be related to the level of no claims discounts, there is still a significant difference in the cost of the premiums for each group, this could in part be explained by the higher level of third party only policies for the Dutch riders.
However this variation may also be due to the fact that in Great Britain (and Northern Ireland), it is the person driving the vehicle who has third party insurance not the vehicle4. This is not the case in most other countries where the vehicle is insured.
Insuring the person is highly restrictive. If a vehicle has third party insurance, then anybody with a valid licence can drive it, but clearly if the person is insured, this ultimately gives the insurers tremendous powers of selection and adds to their profit.
Table Six: Cost of Insurance for Dutch and British Riders
N.B. The exchange rate for the Euro/£ sterling was calculated at €1.4/£1.
14 (3.1%) did not know the cost of their insurance and 50 (11.1%) did not respond to this question in the Dutch Survey. 11 (1.3%) did not know the cost of their insurance and 8 (0.9%) did not respond to this question in the British Survey.
The following table (seven) highlights the response relating to the type of security used by the riders in each country. Overall, there is a significant variation for each group. In Great Britain the Home Office has been a driving force in publicizing the need for specific types of security such as tagging or etching – which implies marking specific parts of the vehicle with a code.
The code is supplied by security companies who charge a fee for the product and if the vehicle is stolen, claim to be able to supply details on request to the police to identify the owner of the vehicle stolen with the aid of a scanner. A significant amount of publicity has been given to tagging or etching in this country.
Table Seven: PTW Security used by Dutch and British Riders
The overall proportion of security used and the responses given in table eight are suggestive. The British riders use security more for fear of theft and to protect their bikes than the Dutch riders, yet there is a significant proportion of Dutch riders who use security to get their insurance.
Presumably this is because the riders will not get insurance without using specific security
products, while there is a higher proportion of British riders that use security to get a discount.
Table Eight: Reasons for using security by Dutch and British Riders
The relationship between the use of a garage and type of insurance may be misleading. Because while ownership of a garage has an impact on the cost of insurance premiums, there is another possible reason for the relationship between the type of insurance and garage ownership, this could be interpreted that overall, these riders actually take more care of their property.
Table Nine: Comparison of British and Dutch Riders garage owners and Type of Insurance
Nine (2%) Dutch and 20 (2.4%) British Riders did not answer the question on types of insurance.
In the event, table nine highlights the fact that apart from third party only (which can be explained by the fact that far more Dutch riders have this type of insurance), the riders from both countries are proportionately similar for both TPFT and Fully Comp in their usage of garages, with a variation of +4% in favour of the British.
The variation of the responses in Table ten is significant. Overwhelmingly, the British riders were far more concerned about the theft of their bikes than the Dutch riders. 81% of the British riders agreed that they were concerned about the theft of their bike compared to 42 % of the Dutch riders. Conversely, only 8.6% of British riders disagreed with that statement compared to 56% of the Dutch riders.
Table Ten: Categorises the response to the statement “I am concerned about Theft”. Dutch and British Riders were asked to agree or disagree with this statement.
9 (2%) did not answer this question in the Dutch survey.
Table Eleven: Dutch and British Riders were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “Theft is a bigger problem in this country than in other European Countries”.
 |
13 (2.9%) did not answer this question in the Dutch survey. 26 (3.1%) did not answer this question in the British survey.
The proportion of riders who stated that they did not know whether theft was a bigger problem in their own country than in other European Countries, was very similar with a slight variation of +1.6%. However, in the British Survey, 43% responded that motorcycle theft was a bigger problem in Britain compared to 19.3% of the Dutch respondents who thought that motorcycle theft was a bigger problem in the Netherlands.
There was a substantial difference of the riders who disagreed with the statement. This table demonstrates that there is a considerable difference in the perception of theft by the riders in each country.
Yet, ironically the following table twelve demonstrates that reality is a completely different story. Theft claims vary by only +0.2%.
Table Twelve: The respondents were asked to disclose any claims made over the previous three years (between 2000 and 2003)
In the Dutch survey, 379 or 83.7% of 451 replied to this question and in the British survey, 731 or 86.5% of 845 replied. Overall the Dutch made more claims that the British Riders (16.4% compared to 13%). However the proportion of claims for theft, are almost identical for both groups surveyed.
Table Thirteen: Total Motorcycle Thefts in G.B. in 2000 (401cc to 1500cc)
 |
Source : Motor Cycle Industry Association for PTW Parc data; Home Office for Theft data.
(NB Parc is a term used by the automotive industry to identify vehicles registered and in circulation)
The claims in table thirteen are the total for the three year period between 2000 and 2003.
This means that the average claims per year for theft were around 1% for both groups. This percentage is more or less equal to the British government data for motorcycles of 400cc and over – which represents the profile of the motorcycles ridden by both groups in the surveys.
Data from the Dutch government (AVc Foundation) for PTW theft highlights that the average level of motorcycle theft is only 0.4% of parc.
However the Motorcycle theft data released by the AVc Foundation does not identify engine size, but the data are separated into categories of PTWs which are Mofas, typically less than 25cc; Mopeds; which are typically 50cc and under and Motorcycles which are typically 100cc and over and to which the following table refers.
Table Fourteen: Theft of Motorcycles in the Netherlands
Source: AVc Foundation for theft and data; BOVAG NL for parc data What is apparent is that government data give different messages. Consider that in Britain5 , there were no official statistics for PTW theft prior to 2003. What was observed is that there was a general perception that motorcycles were at risk.
In 2002, the National Criminal Intelligence Service stated that there were more motorcycles stolen that sold each year. This statement was retracted almost immediately as incorrect, but the impact on the motorcycling public was significant.
Counting Rules in Europe
In spite of the fact that the Dutch police state that their method of registering and recording crime is the same as the British method of counting which therefore suggests that in the Netherlands, motorcycle theft is less than in Britain, the results of the survey suggest otherwise. In this context, variations in counting rules can and do, play an important role in defining levels of vehicle theft in different countries
Timing of recording incidence
It is important when analysing crime data to consider the timing, because this can and does dramatically change the outcome of the count. "The point in time in which the data are recorded varies between countries "immediately" and "subsequently" imply that the legal labelling of the offence is the task of the police (input statistics) while the answer "after investigation" seems to indicate that the labelling is done by the prosecuting authorities (output statistics) once the police enquiry has been completed"6.
Input statistics tend to be more inaccurate and might over-estimate the amount of reported crime, since an investigation has not yet been conducted7.
What is therefore more relevant in this discourse is that the official data give an image of levels of crime and this evidently has a tremendous impact on the perception of crime and ultimately effects fear of crime.
Definition of theft
According to the standard definition in the Council of Europe's Crime & Criminal Justice Statistics sourcebook, "theft" means "depriving a person or organisation of property without force with the intent to keep it". For example in most continental countries, theft by employees is considered embezzlement, so may or may not be included.
Misappropriation
In some other countries in Europe, theft also includes misappropriation or theft by deception – whether this can also be interpreted as embezzlement is unclear. England and Wales and possibly Ireland include “conversion”: hire vehicle theft and may include fraud.
Also in some countries, this definition may also exclude "taking property not in control of the owner". So within the boundaries of these interpretations, a proportion of vehicles will be excluded from being recorded in many countries.
Temporary use
The theft of a vehicle leaves the recording of this offence open to interpretation if the vehicle is recovered within a specific point in time. Each country appears to have a specific definition of "temporary use" and in some countries this means that by definition, "temporary use" is excluded from the count of recording that offence. Also, the offence of "joyriding" with powerful motorcycles is less likely than with cars. According to the Council of Europe's sourcebook, Hungary, Italy (and Cyprus) exclude both joyriding and temporary use.
Definition of temporary use
In England & Wales, there is the offence of "unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle". In 1960, the length of recovery which determined the offence, became 30 days.
However, if a vehicle is recovered within this time and it appears that the offender has "assumed the right of the owner" then this would be recorded as theft.
In Finland, temporary use is defined as unauthorised use, usually one week but a time limit is not defined in the Penal Code. In Ireland, the term “unauthorised taking” is used for theft of vehicles for a period of two months.
After two months it is recorded as a larceny. The group that prepared the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics published first in June 1995 and again in July 1999 commented: "the lack of uniform definitions of offences, of common measuring instruments and of common methodology makes comparisons between countries extremely hazardous"8.
Conclusion
In spite of these observations and in consideration of the reasons highlighted above, relating to the variations in recording vehicle theft, the perception of motorcycle theft in each country varies considerably as has been identified in the survey carried out between the Dutch and British riders.
What is apparent is that the perceived overall high level of motorcycle theft in Great Britain has had a tremendous impact on the behaviour and attitude of riders in this country in relation to the security used and their concerns about theft.
What is also apparent is the variation of the cost of insurance premiums in both countries. While the proportion of riders using both Third Party Fire and Theft or Fully comprehensive insurance is very similar, the variation of the cost of this insurance is quite noticeable.
The greatest proportion of Dutch riders (22.6%) paid less that €100 (£71) for their insurance premiums compared to only 6.4% of British riders who paid less than £100 for their insurance
Conversely 30.1% of British riders paid between £101 and £200 compared to only 18.2% of Dutch riders who paid €101 to €200 (£72 to £144) (+11.9%); 22.7% British riders paid between £201 and £300 compared to 13.5% of Dutch riders who paid €301 to €400 (£215 to £286) (+9.2%).
This variation in insurance premiums suggests that the motor insurance companies in Great Britain have been able to utilize the available government data on crime and with the aid of restrictive compulsory motor insurance, have taken advantage of these two factors in order to increase their profit margins.
Elaine Hardy 25th July, 2005
1 This article is an extract from chapter five of the thesis “The Fear Industry” by Elaine Hardy, MAG UK National Research Officer
2 These two groups are Riders’ Rights organisations that in their respective countries promote and defend the freedom and right to ride motorcycles without
interference from government or industry. These sister organisations are both represented in the Federation of Motorcyclists in Europe (FEMA).
3 A potential policy holder can be obliged to take comprehensive or third party fire and theft as part of the package if the insurance company so wishes. In sum, the consumer must accept that package or “go elsewhere”. The difficulty with ‘going elsewhere’ in Great Britain, is that there are very few motorcycle insurers (c.15) of which 3 – Norwich Union, Equity Red Star and NIG have dominant market shares.
4 Effectively though, the ratings for motor insurance cover both the person and the vehicle that s/he drives or rides.
5 The Home Office Research, the Extent and Nature of PTW theft in 2003, identified that the vast majority of PTW thefts were with small engine sizes, 56% were scooters or mopeds and 75% of thefts were of PTWs under 125cc engine size.
6 European Sourcebook on crime and criminal justice statistics (Council of Europe), 1.A.2 Comments, 1.A.2.1. Methodology, (21) July 1999, page 32.
7 European Sourcebook on crime and criminal justice statistics (Council of Europe),, Counting Rules June, 1995, page 4. premiums (-16.2%).
8 European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, 0.6 Comparability, July 1999, page 11.
|
