His statement was prospective. Your quote is retrospective.

Same reason it is OK to tell people that avoiding smoking reduces their chances of getting lung cancer or that wearing a condom reduces their change of STDs, but it is not OK to tell someone with lung cancer that it is their fault for smoking or to tell someone with an STD that it is their fault for not wearing a condom.

If you think "wallet ∶ car ∷ woman's body ∶ dress" is a valid analogy we can't help you pal.

Telling someone to "not dress provocatively" harms their identity and right to self-expression. It devalues them as a independent human being, reducing them to perpetual victimhood. The crime against which it "protects" is heinous and life-altering and, sadly, our culture still has a somewhat permissive attitude towards it in some situations (e.g., on college campuses).

If anyone's right to identity and self-expression is exemplified by keeping wallet and keys in their car, then, yes, I suppose they should certainly assert their rights by keeping valuables in their car!

Think of the car more like an nonsecure HTTP webmail.

It’s essentially free to anyone who can MITM your connection.

Because it's not about tempting the thieves, it's about accepting the fact that thieves exist. It's about risk mitigation.

He didn't say "Hide your stuff better", he said "Don't treat your car like secure storage".

It's a little different. Dressing provocatively is more like putting a picture of your keys and wallet on the outside of your car.