If you remove the "stealing" part, re-birthing is about creating value and recycling.
People are spending their time and skills in creating good cars (ie that the market is willing to buy) from unusable cars.
They take say 5 bad ones and make 1 good one. That's like a 20% recycling - and the bad one can be sold for parts.
Why exactly is it a bad thing???
EDIT: Yes, I would be comfortable driving myself and my family in such a car. When I buy a car, I take it to a professional I chose (not one that the seller chose) for a 2nd inspection - one that I pay for myself. If the market can provide me such a car and a professional to evaluate the car, yes, I am quite comfortable with that.
Would you prefer "brand new" cars that have unknown defaults that can be fatal? (but that you will learn about only after N people died) These new cars passed all the government tests after all, so do you trust them more? A used car has an history - a professional know the defaults of that particular brand and model, and knows what to look for.
Maybe it's my own biais (aversion to uncertainty?), but everything fails. I prefer things (cars, computers, prescription drugs, etc.) which precise failures are known in advance, thanks to say 100k people having use that same thing for 5 years.
Unfortunately, that exclude most "new" things, since the models are constantly "upgraded".
That being said, cars are often "written off" or somehow declared illegal to ever be driven on the road again once they have a certain level or kind of damage. This is done to keep everyone safer by removing vehicles that don't meet an acceptable minimum standard.
If I chop up 5 cars declared illegal for road use, and make one car from them, is it safe enough? How is that tested? Usually, people that are "re-birthing" cars are not interested in telling the new buyer the history, so nobody will even know the particular car has a questionable safety history.
Would you be happy driving your young family in a car that I welded together from other cars?
Cars which are "written off" by insurance companies are also known as a "total loss" or "totaled" and the title for that car will be branded as such. These things only happen in the case of insurance claims after accidents and such.
Those cars are, as you say illegal to operate as-is, but there are many non-running cars which would be (if certain repairs were made) perfectly legal to drive. Buying up several of these cars and assembling the best pieces is neither illegal or nefarious. Even buying a few "totaled" cars as donors for certain parts is perfectly fine as well.
I work for an insurance company. Many of the cars we declare as "totaled" are nothing of the sort, only they need a few very expensive accessories, or the original equipment is too expensive - but aftermarket or used parts, which we cannot use (the company policy and contract is only replacing with original parts on newer cars), would make the car perfectly fit for driving again. The main culprits are airbags and electronics.
> there are many non-running cars which would be (if certain repairs were made) perfectly legal to drive. Buying up several of these cars and assembling the best pieces is neither illegal or nefarious. Even buying a few "totaled" cars as donors for certain parts is perfectly fine as well.
Right, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what the original comment mentioned about pulling together parts from illegal cars to make one legal car.
Let's be perfectly honest, even if I put together 5 1991 Subaru Loyales to make one good one, I won't be making money because it's still only worth $2k.
On the other hand, if I can "get" a few 2009+ luxury cars and turn them into a good car, I stand to make a lot of money. I think you'll find you can't legally and cheaply get 2009+ luxury cars.
People are spending their time and skills in creating good cars (ie that the market is willing to buy) from unusable cars.
They take say 5 bad ones and make 1 good one. That's like a 20% recycling - and the bad one can be sold for parts.
Why exactly is it a bad thing???
EDIT: Yes, I would be comfortable driving myself and my family in such a car. When I buy a car, I take it to a professional I chose (not one that the seller chose) for a 2nd inspection - one that I pay for myself. If the market can provide me such a car and a professional to evaluate the car, yes, I am quite comfortable with that.
Would you prefer "brand new" cars that have unknown defaults that can be fatal? (but that you will learn about only after N people died) These new cars passed all the government tests after all, so do you trust them more? A used car has an history - a professional know the defaults of that particular brand and model, and knows what to look for.
Maybe it's my own biais (aversion to uncertainty?), but everything fails. I prefer things (cars, computers, prescription drugs, etc.) which precise failures are known in advance, thanks to say 100k people having use that same thing for 5 years.
Unfortunately, that exclude most "new" things, since the models are constantly "upgraded".