It was one of those commutes this morning. Stuck in traffic for no apparent reason, I at least had time to get wound up by the ad on the back of the bus in front of me.

The ad was a Lambeth Council campaign to reduce car crime. There are, apparently, four steps to reduce car crime.

1. Activate alarms and immobilisers
2. Close all doors, windows and roofs
3. Make sure there are no valuables on display

So far, so common sense. You can't argue with those and it's only right that we all remain vigilant. But then came the kicker.

4. Park in a safe area

Is a local authority in our capital city seriously trying to tell us that there are no-go areas for car parking?

When I asked Lambeth what these safe areas were, they blustered on about meaning areas that are well-lit. So why are there areas that are badly lit? Don't we pay enough in council tax to ensure that there's adequate lighting throughout the borough?

But there's a bigger and much more important principle at stake here, about who's to blame for crime. Lambeth's argument suggests that even if you have a secure car, and make sure that you don't leave your sat nav out on display, if you park in a dark alley it's still your fault if you get robbed. Wouldn't a logical extension of this argument suggest that women dressed in skimpy clothes are 'asking' to be raped?

If this view of the shared responsibility of the victims of crime gains wider acceptance in society, and the council can't guarantee the safety of your car in an 'unsafe' (ie badly lit) area, what happens when your car gets robbed and you make an insurance claim? The insurance companies - who are always looking for ways not to pay up - could conceivably agree with Lambeth and decide that policies are invalid when we park in these 'unsafe' areas.

We obviously consider crime to be something of an occupational hazard these days, but perhaps Lambeth are pushing our sense of acceptance a little too far.