Then again, my bike is probably not the first one they'll consider, given that it has a 70cm frame making it all but impossible to ride for anyone under 195cm (being 200cm myself). If you steal a bicycle you have to be able to sell it, and given that a lot of professionally stolen bicycles are exported to countries with lower GDP's and that there aren't that many (if any) countries where tall people are as relatively common as in the Netherlands that match that criterium, I am relatively safe I suppose (as long as I lock it to a barrier or bicycle stand).
Not so sure your design / desirable bike will last long thou. See here (1) where an absolute unique Audi RS6 DTM was stolen WHILE being used in a film shoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n53U_HlIs_Q (sorry, Dutch only)
Combined with an AirTag hidden discreetly in the frame and I'm unafraid of locking it up basically anywhere.
but i could see a world where I own two of these and not even bother locking them anywhere, just constantly get one 'stolen' while i ride the other, and cycle (ha) between the two?
They also recover the bike only up to three times in 3-year timespan. Still, sounds like a great service!
That doesn't help, we used to joke with an aquaitance of mine that it was a miracle that his bike still worked, and he used to reply at least it wouldn't attract the attention of thieves, until the day he got stolen.
Most protection can be circonvented if the thief is savy and equipped.
All that is needed is to be the least stealable bicycle in the rack. In my case this means two locks of different kinds. It's a big deterrent and they will move on to other, easier targets.
If you can avoid being the lowest hanging fruit, you will probably be alright.
I've noticed that sometimes more expensive bikes simply don't get stolen while cheap ones do. I assume that's because of an easier market to sell them. There was a period when my son's children's bikes got stolen all the time, while my far more expensive cargo bike wasn't, despite it being only locked with a ring lock, and no chain. But of course a kid's bike is also much easier to pick up, and it had a very light lock.
In London, most stolen bikes are expensive (or expensive-looking) and they are primarily resold within London.
So true. Many people seem to imagine bike locks as an arms race between owners and thieves, but it's an arms race between owners and other owners. The role of thieves in that arms race is more like that of a judge than like that of a participant. Well, unless they refuse acting in that role and just pick up the entire rack...
(language warning if you've never seen the show)
I like this blog on that topic:
> One father I know had his primary-school-age daughter "decorate" his commuting bicycle with girly stickers and pink glitter. If anyone examines his bicycle closely he looks like a complete loon but I think his motivation is right: it's going to be much less appealing to steal when it's covered in Miffy stickers.
I also like that it's powered by a "Meat Motor".
This is a good idea though. Anything that makes your bike identifiable is a good deterrent.
We inherited a bike with a cable bike lock around the handlebars. The local bike shop was able to cut through it easily with bolt cutters.
My truck came with a locking hitch. I recently forgot my keys and a family member pried it off with a crowbar in 10 seconds.
I'm always amazed how the Lockpicking Lawyer on YouTube defeats any lock within seconds. I think the hardest one was a couple minutes.
That was the first (and only) time in my life I used a bolt cutter and it took me maybe 30 seconds to cut the cable. Now it would have been 10 seconds because I know where to cut.
I would not say that thi sis security theater, it is to avoid the passer-by who would steal your bike on a whim. I have no idea what percentage of thiefs this is .
The economics seem to work out fairly well, the bikes are good, you always have a solid working bike. If you buy a bike yourself, it might run you 200-300 for an okay one, 500ish for a decent one, but you never know if it will get stolen or not. And obviously the company prints money too.
Or move to the countryside, where you can usually leave your bike unlocked outside of the supermarket ...
And reading all the bike theft horror stories here, I was wondering, why GPS tracking is not more of a thing? It seems to exist, but might be hard to make use of in reality?
(because professionals jam them or remove them and the police is not too eager to do something about a stolen bike?)
What would they even do with such a bike?
I don't think that has anything to do with it - e-bikes are inherently more complex, more tightly regulated (e.g. they need to be tuned to operate legally in specific jurisdictions), and subject to EU anti-dumping laws which drive up the price .
0 - https://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regulations/nieuws/2019/01/its-...
For reference, I’m currently using https://www.boc24.de/p/bocas-bari-trapez/217333/ (which I bought at 320€ on sale) with some changes (B&M 100 lux front light, seat post with suspension), and I don’t think I’d get any major improvements with other changes.
Due to cycling in city traffic, I need to be able to instantly switch gears at standstill, so a derailleur would be a downgrade compared to the hub gearing I’ve got, and upgraded hub dynamos would bring me just 2-5% more performance, which isn’t really useful.
Higher end bikes don't have any "features" that yours doesn't have. But you could also spend half as much as you did and still get the same features. Higher price points get you lightness and stiffness. This translates into speed or less effort, depending on your preference. You also get higher quality components that will last a long time or you can swap out and sell if you wish. Low end bikes tend to be disposed of as a unit as they are not worth taking apart.
I feel like it’s just like people buying expensive sports cars, purely because they can, not because they actually need any of it.
High end derailers shift easier, chains have lower friction (especially in high/low gears), spokes and rims are more aerodynamic and stiffer, ratchets have smaller engagement angles, brakes require less force and don't overheat, tyres have lower rolling resistance and better grip, seat posts have compliance to remove chatter etc., And this is before you get into eg. MTB specific features like chain clutches and suspension tuning, or for triathlon aero bars, for city bikes pannier clips and built in lights, etc
Nothing. Bike manufacturers and smaller builders are not trying to sell these bikes to you or to people like you. How hard is it to enjoy your "normal bike" and move on?
Some people ride their bicycles for thousands to tens of thousands of miles per year. They're going to buy what they want so that when they do ride, they enjoy it.
Cheap wheels go out of true easily and before long are often too bent to be able to true by spoke adjustments. Cheap tires wear out fast and puncture easily. Cheap brakes wear out and go out of adjustment fast. Ditto cheap shift gear. I've broken pedals too, and I don't pedal all that aggressively. Really cheap stuff tends to be excessively heavy too, which can be a drag on uphills and when you need to carry it.
Yours looks like a perfectly fine commuter bike to me. I'm not familiar with the wheel or shift gear classes, but if it gets you where you need to go without wearing stuff out too fast, by all means no need to spend more.
For that much money, you could afford... a Rohloff hub? No frame though
While it i definitely true that expensive bike existed for a long time, enthusiast where rarely parking this type of bike in the middle of a busy city. These are the kind of bike who are always kept safely in a locked garage. Plus, the number of enthusiast who pay for this kind of bike are way lower. So not only is it more rare for a thief to come across this type of bike, they also might have an harder time reselling it, and reselling it is more dangerous because those bike are easily identifiable and the legitimate owner usually care enough about it to have made it registered.
E-bike are just plain more common, and most people use them for commute which mean they tend to be park in places that are more vulnerable to thief and are easier to resell.
Are you sure? There are more bicycles in the world than cars.
> The engineering that goes into even the cheapest of Dacias is hundreds of times more complex
Again, that does not make something more valuable. The engineering that would go into a lunar orbiting plant pot would be very complex, but has no value.
The discussion was about the engineering value of a 10k bike (or a 100k watch I guess) - it’s more of a luxury good than an engineering necessity
Absolutely no. Crappy ebikes start at 700, OK ebikes start at 1000-1200 and anything above 2.5k is enthusiast territory.
And these prices are still a lot higher than they should be, in my opinion. I posted previously on the issue - they are so expensive, compared to cars, while using far less metal and other resources, fewer IP concerns, not having all the homologation and certification burdens, being vastly cheaper to ship, etc.
Clearly more of a fashion statement, than quality difference.
Do screwdrivers typically have cords? And if so, what for?
At what point (if ever) would using a photo like this fall under fair use? The author doesn’t seem to care, but I’m curious if copyright is ever forfeited due to widespread use or inaction of the copyright holder.
Enforcement and collection of the damages is a totally different issue.
As for fair use: if you were to criticise something related to the image (say, you make a whole youtube video criticising the blog posts on this website and this image scrolls by when you do a quick lookaround on the website) or make some kind of transformative art out of it and the author would sue under DMCA or similar and the lawsuit would be based on US law, fair use would probably apply.
Fair use is a defence to use in a lawsuit, after all, not a right, but you can definitely do things with this picture that would be defensible under fair use. Companies specialising in copyright would probably try to convince you to avoid a lawsuit and come to a mutually beneficial agreement before the thing is settled, though, because big media companies do not like it when copyright law and things like fair use get defined (and thus consumer rights may be gained, and the excessive wealth of the media industry might get dented).
What the pirate bay did could never really be construed as fair use. At best, they can claim to simply host links, no content, and should not be held accountable for the illegal behaviour of the users and searching clicking said links, just like normal service providers. That's not an exemption in copyright law, though.
The statutory fair use defense codifies a Constitutional (First Amendment) limit on the copyright power found by the courts prior to the existence of the statutory defense, so it is both a defense and a right, specifically, the Constitutional right of free speech.
Lawsuit defenses, more generally, are assertions of rights, whether statutory, common law, or Constitutional.
It fails this part of fair use: 'The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original.'
Taking a step back, why not? Even (especially) real estate gets forfeited like that. It seems like the mp3s I've had for 20 years should fall under adverse possession. Or if you'd like a higher bar for openly possessed, then torrents have that have been publicly seeded for multiple decades.
Trademarks, certainly, but not copyright.
If the copyright holder knows its being used, and doesn't attempt to enforce copyright rights, but after a decade or similar, changes mind and starts enforcing, the court might rule that copyright is no longer enforceable.
If an image works then people will copy it at nauseam.
Maybe it provided some evolutionary advantage already at a really primitive form. For example maybe people were drawing hunting plans on sand?
We have a politician in either blackface or KKK outfit. I don't think dancing naked at a party is enough.
Might as well draw a picture of a bike in MS paint. Same effect.
Let's pick an article at random: "End of UK lockdown may mean a rise in bike thefts". You most likely need a few seconds to read and understand that the main topic of the article is bike theft and start to visualize it. I mean, chances that you start reading the title and think "it is about covid" and as you read the end, you think "no, it is about bike theft". Put a really obvious and staged picture of someone stealing a bike and you instantly get it.
Kind of the same reason why we put icons next to text in software UI, even though it is redundant.
By least effort, I don't mean that people should make no effort, but I don't want to force them just because it feels virtuous. In the case of an article, ideally, it should follow a progression. The illustration is the first step: it is quick, and intuitive, enough to know if want to continue or not. Then there is the title, intro, the article itself, and the references. This way, I can spend as much effort as I want, but I am not forced at any point.
So, for example.
1- Illustration of a bike thief: This is about bike theft, I am interested, let's see (alternatively: I don't care, I don't have a bike anyways, let's see the other news)
2- Title: This is about bike theft after the UK lockdown, ah, interesting, I didn't think about that (alternatively: meh, I heard enough about that lockdown)
3- Article: That's a good overview of the situation, but I'd like to learn more (alternatively: fine, that's all I need to know)
4- References: and so on, and so on, ...
11 word headlines are already a shortcut and there is a point where more shortcuts are just taking the piss. Besides, on the internet I’ve probably already committed to clicking on an article before I see most illustrations.
I think illustrative pictures should always add to an article, not be a shortcut to decide interest.
“This public square on Franklin Street is the number one place to have your bike stolen in London” not “remember what a bike looks like?”
The “only respond to the headline” problem HN has is an extended version of the problem.
Publishing the photos on Flickr doesn’t hold a torch to the exposure from Unsplash!
Yes, this would be preposterous, wrong, and I might go so far as to call it evil. Certainly stupid. But can you really say it can't happen? Would it surprise you if it happened in the US, or that rather than apologize and reverse the injustice that it would be ignored or worse, jumped on by conspiracy theorists and an even harsher penalty applied?
To live in a post-evidence world is to live in a world of chaos and terror where light-hearted online banter can and will be used against you. You laugh now, and say it couldn't possibly happen? Well, wait.
They framed a shot, akin to acting, and no bike was stolen.
The author clearly outlines this point that nothing was stolen.
If the author showed his face, showing a clear resemblance, I could see notoriety possibly raise some eyebrows being the same guy as the bike thief stock photo... But that's a very far fetched possibility.
Unless the guy was convicted of a crime, with a criminal record, then maybe have some issues... But this instance maybe take off the tinfoil
You should also know that posting on a forum with "hacker" in the title is dangerous.
All the world's bad guys under your thumb! (Rolling Stones 'Under my thumb' starts playing as a border guard presses Inditer Pro search button - identifying tourist as BIKE THIEF!)
on edit: yes, it should be Indicter, but ours is a web 4.0 company.
I thought that to qualify for web 4.0 you needed Indite*ly.
IF Inditer Pro had 90% success rate, it would actually substantially solve (wrongly) a problem, and that would again disqualify it from being web 4.0.
The actual success rate would probably be - by design - around 59-62%, high enough to be better than flipping a coin in preliminary controlled studies and allowing yearly improvements (I beg your pardon, I meant OTA updates) of 1-2%, so that the company would have guaranteed income for the next 20 years or so.
The second being a human decision maker with poor English reading the headline and not fully comprehending the story.
Both cases unlikely but an interesting idea anyway.