The Chainlink

So it looks like there are still bike thieves in the City of Chicago and that bike owners are still determined to make it easy for them. We had a modest increase (5%) in reports to the Chicago Stolen Bike Registry in 2013 after a whopping 42% increase from 2011 to 2012. The spreadsheet for the period of 2010 through 2013 is attached, but the numbers that stick out for me:

59% of thefts reported to the CSBR last year were of bikes which either weren’t locked (26.5%) or were locked with only some form of cable lock (32.6%).

Another 27.6% of reports to the CSBR were of bikes with a locking method identified as “Other.” The “Other” category has been a topic of discussion in past threads because this is sometimes an option selected by the victim and sometimes an option selected by the CSBR admins. Victims are asked to select "Other" when no lock was cut or broken to steal the bike, and admittedly, this fact is sometimes difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty. The admin protocol is to make the change when the narrative makes it clear that a lock wasn't defeated to steal the bike. "Other" includes by way of example, bikes which were only locked to themselves (regardless of lock type); bikes which are locked only through the front wheel (regardless of lock type) and the bike is stolen by leaving the wheel locked to the rack and taking the rest; bikes which were locked (regardless of lock type) to a sucker pole, wooden or iron fence, and the object which it was locked to was obviously broken or defeated.

Only 4.4% of reports to the CSBR were of bikes locked to a bike rack with a newer U-Lock. It’s that easy to minimize your risk of being a theft victim.

Register your bike. Write down your serial number. Take a picture of your bike. Don’t lock your bike and leave it in a common area that other people can access. Don’t lock your bike with some form of cable lock as your only security device. Don’t lock your bike to a fence or a sucker pole. Don’t leave your unlocked bike in front of a store, on your back porch, in a garage or in a yard. Bike thieves can and do climb fences and stairs.

CSBR%202010-2013%20FINAL%201%2027%2014.pdf

Views: 3110

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nice effort, Barry--thanks!  Of course, this gets us back to the MC Escher-style impossibly bendable frame...
 
Barry Aldridge said:

This is crude, but should eliminate the graphic error in the BART poster.

why didnt you call the police or confront him or tell him to stop?

Jeff Schneider said:

I've seen a little guy walking along the LFP in the summer, stopping wherever there were bikes locked up.  He had a couple of tools, maybe a crescent wrench and an allen wrench, and he would just take off whatever parts he could.  He didn't care at all how many people saw him doing this.  I hope someone very large, with a very bad temper, eventually caught him messing with their bike...

We have had this discussion before. You don't need two u locks to secure your bike. This is too much work for people (and weight to carry).

If you feel like you need to lock both wheels bring a cable lock. It is very unusual for thieves to take a wheel that is cable locked. Parts stealing is a low $ business and basically a crime of opportunity.  Serious bike thieves aren't going to risk getting caught over a wheel than can get them $15.
h' 1.0 said:

And make sure your bike is perpendicular to the rack just like in the picture :-)
 
Thunder Snow said:

This poster is an effective, simple diagram of what to do, published by BART, the "CTA" of San Francisco.  The only thing I'd add: is to include the bike rack inside Lock #2, along with the frame and wheel, so that the bike is attached at two points and can't be swung up as a giant lever, to break a single lock attached to a rack.

You're confusing "best practices" (two U-locks) with "possibly adequate."  You might lock your bike frame or wheel with a cable and never have it stolen, but that gets down to luck rather than anything you're doing.  Yes, two locks weigh more than one and that's the trade-off for more security.

This isn't a one-size-fits-all, it's a continuum of your personal sense of security vs. effort.  Some folks aren't at all bothered by losing a bike or wheel or saddle, others are.  I posted this, as it seems some folks hadn't even considered using two locks, and getting that idea out as a possible method seems useful.  Whether anyone chooses to use the information is up to them. 

I see far too many stolen bikes on the Chicago Stolen Bike Registry that weren't locked at all: either "I just ran into the store for a minute" or it was sitting in a garage or back porch or yard, ripe for the taking.  I'm horrified at the bikes I see sitting in racks with a tiny cable around the frame or, even worse, a cable through the wheel spokes and nothing else.  Getting those folks to at least always use one U-lock properly would be a huge step forward. 

But this post wasn't for them, it's aimed at REALLY locking your bike down, for those of us who've taken the first step.   I've never heard of a bike locked at two points with two U-locks ever getting stolen.  Has anyone else? 

Personally, I vary from "best practice" by using a U-lock and heavy chain lock.  The chain is slightly less secure than a second U-lock, though more secure than a cable, but I gain a lot of flexibility when the only thing to lock to is a fat street light post or tree trunk.  But whenever possible, I try to lock to a rack at two points with my two locks, while going through the frame triangle and wheel rim.
 
jolondon30 said:

We have had this discussion before. You don't need two u locks to secure your bike. This is too much work for people (and weight to carry).

If you feel like you need to lock both wheels bring a cable lock. It is very unusual for thieves to take a wheel that is cable locked. Parts stealing is a low $ business and basically a crime of opportunity.  Serious bike thieves aren't going to risk getting caught over a wheel than can get them $15.

Well you and I certainly agree on a few things. We want everybody to lock their bike securely, which means at a minimum a  u lock. And I agree that people should be lock however they wish. If you want to carry a second chain lock had it.  

I didn't want the picture to be seen as "best practice" because I don't think that' what it shows As the data indicates single u locks very rarely result in bike loss.  Occasionally people lose wheels and seats but from what  I've read here - and my own experience - a simply chain defeats parts theft.  

One of the joys of riding for me is that it's much easier than driving when one thinks of parking, meters, etc.  Just get on the bike and ride. If I were to use two u locks every time I ride the carrying weight would go up and the hassle index would increase significantly.  In fact I only lock my second wheel if  I will be away from the bike for a while and the location is  dicey.  

I do find folks that park their bikes downtown usually lock up pretty good. The worst offenders are the college campus kids locking up with cables I could cut with strong scissors. Depaul campus in Linken Park always has cut cables blowing in the wind down the street.

May bike thieves never know a downhill coast.  I feel for everyone with a bike theft story; my son is one of you.  It just blows my mind that none of these front-of-building racks are monitored, ESPECIALLY on college campuses.  A city-dweller's bike is as important to him/her as a suburb-dweller's car, and the penalties for theft of either should be equally as harsh.  Of course, I'm venting to 'the choir', but they don't really have a website for bike thieves, do they?

J

Kevin gets a broader audience here.

I think Kevin clearly did a great job of getting some key points across.

Somewhat regrettable that the author did not do a good job of making it clear that the data collected by the CSBR represents only a small sampling of what's going on out there, and was not more careful to frame the application of the data more accurately-- e.g.:

Conway's year-end report, compiled this week, showed that the spring and summer months are the most popular for bike theft, with roughly two-thirds of the year's total thefts taking place between May and September.

"Suggested" would have been a much better way to go.

Also of note-- she got the chainlink URL out there, but not the CSBR's....
 
Lisa Curcio 4.1 mi said:

Kevin gets a broader audience here.

I need to remember to insist on editorial control. But on a positive note, the hyperlink to CSBR works in the online version. According to Google Analytics, traffic to the CSBR tripled yesterday, 2/9 when the article was posted. I don't know what today's numbers are yet for the Tribune re-print.

h' 1.0 said:

I think Kevin clearly did a great job of getting some key points across.

Somewhat regrettable that the author did not do a good job of making it clear that the data collected by the CSBR represents only a small sampling of what's going on out there, and was not more careful to frame the application of the data more accurately-- e.g.:

Conway's year-end report, compiled this week, showed that the spring and summer months are the most popular for bike theft, with roughly two-thirds of the year's total thefts taking place between May and September.

"Suggested" would have been a much better way to go.

Also of note-- she got the chainlink URL out there, but not the CSBR's....
 
Lisa Curcio 4.1 mi said:

Kevin gets a broader audience here.

I got in the habit of asking to have a look at the final copy before publication a while back, but rarely will they follow through even when they agree.  At least they didn't attribute anything to you that you didn't actually say...?

Nice interview Kevin. A big thanks for everything you do.

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service