Shock warning! Should we ask for Registration?

[themutiny]

OK OK......Who has had a bike stolen on this forum then ?
How many of us .....just as a matter of interest.....

Lynda

As I posted earlier, 7 in ten years. Granted, most of those belonged to my kids and were a result of their lack of life experience (despite my oft-repeated exhortations), but two were stolen from a locked shed and the worst, the Torq theft was due to a moments inattention on my part. I had a top rated D lock, but must have failed to properly secure it. I was gone only 20 mins..

 

[DJH]

OK OK......Who has had a bike stolen on this forum then ?
How many of us .....just as a matter of interest.....

Lynda

No bikes in 63 years of owning bikes. One car in 51 years of owning cars.

 

[funkylyn]

No bikes in 63 years of owning bikes. One car in 51 years of owning cars.

Well, I hope I am not tempting fate, but I havent had either stolen ever, I realise at the moment that I live in a low crime area, but I will be moving back to South Shields this year.......maybe I will change my tune then

Meanwhile I stick to my guns.....no more papers/rules/regulations for me thankyou very much.......I can see the other sides argument, but prefer to look after my own goods and chattles to my best ability.......

Lynda

 

[flecc]

Nor me, as I posted earlier this has never affected me, I'm just well aware of the size of the problem.

There's no threat of this coming about anyway, since it would need strong support to persuade a government concerned not to diminish cycling. Clearly the support wouldn't be there, so we'll have to continue with the growing problem and probably suffer government action eventually when it reaches breaking point for all concerned.

I'd just rather it have been a moderate solution proposed by us, than a government solution crudely imposed with unsuitable provisions.
.

 

[eddieo]

and increasing insurance costs

 

[funkylyn]

I'd just rather it have been a moderate solution proposed by us, than a government solution crudely imposed with unsuitable provisions.
.

But that is the problem Flecc.....give them an inch and they would take a mile.......thats why I am so against more rules and regulations, because once they start, who knows where it would all end up......I still feel its better by far for each of us to just try our best with security paramount in our minds, but I fully understand the points you are making.

Lynda

 

[flecc]

But that is the problem Flecc.....give them an inch and they would take a mile.......thats why I am so against more rules and regulations, because once they start, who knows where it would all end up.....

Not any more Lynda, Chairman Dave and Commissar Nick are getting rid of big government.

It just remains to see whether they do the will of the people or just do the people.

 

[flecc]

I'll round this off by mentioning another advantage that no-one spotted. Cyclists have a poor image, in no small part due to driver's criticisms of their not paying road tax etc.

The tax and number plate would stop much of that immediately, bikes then being seen in the same way as mopeds, legitimate road users entitled to be there. That's more of an advantage than might at first be apparent, it could lead to much nicer attitudes.

 

[z0mb13e]

OK OK......Who has had a bike stolen on this forum then ?
How many of us .....just as a matter of interest.....

Lynda

Two... in my lifetime. One mountain bike stolen from a works car park during the working day and a very rare BMX that I chained up outside a pub.

The mountain bike was a piece of crap. The BMX would have been sold as parts...

 

[funkylyn]

I'll round this off by mentioning another advantage that no-one spotted. Cyclists have a poor image, in no small part due to driver's criticisms of their not paying road tax etc.

The tax and number plate would stop much of that immediately, bikes then being seen in the same way as mopeds, legitimate road users entitled to be there. That's more of an advantage than might at first be apparent, it could lead to much nicer attitudes.

Well as a driver, I think my image of cyclists is fine and obviously they are just as entitled to be on the roads as anyone else, road tax paying or not.....they dont do the damage to the roads that vehicle drivers do, only have to put up with the potholes and certain maniacal drivers etc....... I am always nice to cyclists I meet on the road ........
Mind you, understandably I suppose, I could be accused of being biased....seeing as I 'bat' both ways (metaphorically speaking )

Surely the drivers who have a 'poor image' of cyclists are beneath contempt anyway.....

I could point out that prams/pedestrians/dogs/mobility scooters etc etc all use the roads without paying road tax.....but I wont cos that would be being silly, and whats more important, my best friend Elsie, whose drive in Kendal I am currently parked on, has my roast beef dinner nearly ready, so I havent got time right now

Lynda

 

[neptune]

@Lynda .It is my understanding that there are two classes of mobility scooters . One is limited to 4MPH and the other to 8MPH . The 4MPH ones are for use on pavements , though what you do if you live out in the sticks where there are no pavements , I have no idea . The "fast " ones are for road use , and I believe they have to have a tax disc , although they may be zero rated . Not sure about number plates , or third party insurance . Back in the 1960s it was a fashion among us hippies to wear home made sandals. The soles were made from old car tyres . I used to kid my friends that I was in trouble with the Police for having one cross ply sole and one radial ...so even pedestrians are not above the law .

 

[flecc]

These are the rules, class 3 are the 8 mph ones but they can do both jobs:

Mobility vehicle classes

 

[neptune]

@flecc . Many thanks .It states that the 4MPH jobs are for footway use only . So if you live in area without "footways " you can only use it on your drive .

 

[flecc]

I think the road in that case is the footway, as it would be for pedestrians. If not, the basis for saying that is the 4 mph ones can cross roads legally, so all one is doing in the case of a road losing footpaths is crossing to the next footpath.

Let me see them get out of that "gotcha"!
.

 

[fishingpaul]

Again although in general i can see your point here,i cannot see how the goverment could charge £10 for road tax on a bike when electric cars are free tax,and unless there is a profit to be made out of this,there will be zero interest from the goverment.

 

[eTim]

I think that introducing a registration scheme may potentially increase the number of bikes stolen.

Thieves are innovative they will find a way of profiting from stolen bikes whether registered or not, those 'responsible' end buyers will go for a bargain before being strictly legal, let's take a possible scenario:

Bikes are registered which pushes out opportunists and quick sell thieves, therefore the criminal gangs are the only one's that could become more organised to sell stolen bikes.

The criminal gang steal 7 bikes in a week, takes them back to a lock-up where they create 'bitsa' whole bikes from the 7, they then legitimately or fraudulently register the 'bitsa' bikes to provide provenance and sell on ebay at reasonable, but cheap, prices to unknowing punters..........therefore the market continues.

That could possibly make the situation worse as organised criminal gangs would move into the lucrative 'bitsa' bike market, the appetite to create one or two saleable bikes from the original seven would mean more demand for stolen bikes with many frames and wheelsets being sold on and the rest dumped.

There needs to be some in-depth thinking into a registration scheme to reduce crime to make sure it would work, modelling crime scenarios and their potential risk of them actually happening. Of course the above example might be just too much trouble with not much profit for the gangs, I really have no idea.

This is just one scenario I have thought of, I'm sure there are others?

Anyone want to market survey the criminal gangs?

 

[rooel]

I think registration of pedal cycles would be a very bad idea indeed, and is totally unnecessary.

It would be much more sensible to put the licence fee towards the purchase of a good lock.

Registration will not stop thefts: professional thieves will find a way round it. Where stolen bikes are shipped out of the country they will not have to bother even doing that. Furthermore many bikes are stolen by joy riders who will simply abandon them sooner rather than later (and if they are electric they will be able to set them on fire just as their motor car stealing counterparts do).

As for insurance there is no need to pay for expensive specialist bike insurance (even if the such insurers advertise on pedelecs pages!): many household insurers provide bike theft insurance cover and include electric bikes. Not only that, the same insurance policies provide public liability cover too, something no pedestrian or cyclist should be without.

Non-householders such as lodgers or anyone who lives in a house whose owner does not have such insurance would in any case be well advised to obtain contents cover which will also include theft away from home and public liability cover.

As for bike registration making motorists more friendly towards cyclists, I doubt it. That sort of attitude (whether induced by education of drivers or taxation for cyclists) soon disappears when impatience (mainly females) or aggression (mainly males) takes over. It would be much more sensible to legislate for strict liability to be applied to drivers where their vehicles collide with a pedestrian or cyclist, something which seems to be advantageous on the continent without causing nervous breakdowns among the motoring lobby. It would not necessarily increase insurance premiums as there would be no arguments regarding liability thus reducing lawyers' fees (something the present government is keen to do particularly with regard to the no-win, no-fee agents). There might still have to be arguments over the amount of compensation, but the insurance companies and the lawyers now have huge computerised databases listing previous payouts which provide a ready precedent for early settlement without having to go to court.

 

[flecc]

I've already covered all the points you raise Tim and Rooel, the police know that bike theft is an organised affair with middlemen as I've mentioned earlier, and gangs are also engaged in the front line theft. And as everyone else has done, you've ignored that the log book is the key to success.

They would not become more sophisticated to cope with false log book production, number plate cloning and rebuilding as bitsas as I've already said, simply because stolen bike values just don't pay enough. The absolute proof of that is that they don't steal hatchbacks and other basic cars any more because it doesn't pay, car theft is now confined to high end models. If a car theft can't pay, a registered bike theft sure as hell can't.

 

[funkylyn]

So, by your reasoning Flecc, what I dont understand is, if theft is driven by a need for money, and low end car models arent worth enough to make it pay stealing them.........why would they want to start stealing loads more bikes ?

Lynda

 

[flecc]

So, by your reasoning Flecc, what I dont understand is, if theft is driven by a need for money, and low end car models arent worth enough to make it pay stealing them.........why would they want to start stealing loads more bikes ?

Lynda

It's fast but low return and very low risk Lynda, since bikes have no ID at present. It's not "starting stealing" as you say, the theft scale is already immense. Police figure for London alone is well over 20,000 annually, but that is a fraction of the total as they know, since in the main only those insured bother to report the theft to get a crime number for the insurer. Most people don't insure their bikes.

If bikes had ID and a log book, the low return on this large scale theft just wouldn't pay, since such things as log book forging and numberplate swapping etc would have to be undertaken and the risks of being caught would be much higher as well. At the moment theft and disposal is just too easy.

I've based all this on the facts, the rebuttals that I've received are mostly fanciful. Bikes shipped out to Africa for example? No chance, there are charities already sending them there free so no profit in that. In addition Africans don't like our bikes, for their purposes they ride ride all steel rigid bikes imported from India at such low prices that theft shipments from here wouldn't be worth it anyway.

Stripping and reassembling as "bitsas" is equally fanciful, bitsas aren't worth anything, especially in a market where the stolen bike prices sold to middlemen are already very low. The scale of this theft is such that it's not a matter of selling odd ones in pubs, there's well organised selling chains with the bikes ending up bought by respectable buyers. With two or more in the selling chain the gains are very low at each stage, relying on volume to pay. My solution is to take the volume out and make theft processing much more costly, so no longer worthwhile.

Thieves move on to something else when something gets too difficult. When cars were very easy to steal they were a favourite. VIN and laser keys made that too tough for most, so motorcycles were lifted with vans. Better VIN ID in those, plus owners fitting alarms made that much tougher, so the growth in cycling made that more attractive, resulting in the theft boom now. Now we need to make that much more difficult.