_______               __                   _______
       |   |   |.---.-..----.|  |--..-----..----. |    |  |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
       |       ||  _  ||  __||    < |  -__||   _| |       ||  -__||  |  |  ||__ --|
       |___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__|   |__|____||_____||________||_____|
                                                             on Gopher (inofficial)
   URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
       
       
       COMMENT PAGE FOR:
   URI   I became the internet’s most notorious bike thief
       
       
        markstos wrote 1 day ago:
        Or you upload some photos to Unsplash. My bike photos there have been
        viewed about 2.5 million times on the site and downloaded over 1,000
        times, findable on many sites around the world.
        
        Publishing the photos on Flickr doesn’t hold a torch to the exposure
        from Unsplash!
       
        lr1970 wrote 2 days ago:
        My anti-theft device is my Brompton foldable bike. It folds down to a
        small package in 10 seconds and I take it with me anywhere I go
        including buses, trains, etc. It came with a nice black zipper cover.
        One cannot see that there is a bike inside. This helps with some pesky
        ticket masters on trains.
       
        franciscop wrote 2 days ago:
        I find it sweetly ironic that ALL those magazines talking about
        stealing bikes are committing copyright infringement (which the media
        is used to call "stealing").
       
          zamadatix wrote 1 day ago:
          At the same time they'd probably find it a sweetly ironic show of how
          it's too hard to control copyrighted material on the internet or
          something for. After all like the article says it probably wasn't
          intentionally ripped or any claims avoided it more likely ended up in
          a stock photo site with the wrong license attached and the author
          never pursued it.
       
          manquer wrote 2 days ago:
          More likely the picture was added to stock photo library (illegally
          maybe) and they all use from there.
       
        bambax wrote 2 days ago:
        This is reminiscent of another story about images: [1] If an image
        works then people will copy it at nauseam.
        
   URI  [1]: https://www.hanselman.com/blog/there-is-only-one-cloud-icon-in...
       
          shever73 wrote 2 days ago:
          A similar thing happened to one of my photos from Flickr. It was of a
          riverbed dried up in the Kenyan drought. Someone messaged me to ask
          permission to use it in a project and since then, it has appeared in
          news articles everywhere - mostly without attribution - and with the
          location varying from a selection of African countries to California
          and lots of places in between.
       
          Gravityloss wrote 2 days ago:
          I wonder why people are obsessed with image copying. It has lead to
          the invention of writing for example. [1] Maybe it provided some
          evolutionary advantage already at a really primitive form. For
          example maybe people were drawing hunting plans on sand?
          
   URI    [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
       
        ddmma wrote 2 days ago:
        The advantage of stealing bikes are that have big value and lowest
        return rate from police or recovery.
        Had a project of bottom bracket IoT so peddaling could blocked but
        wasn’t feasable.
       
        ThePhysicist wrote 2 days ago:
        Slightly off topic, but I think bike thieves are becoming more and more
        professional recently. Here in Berlin many now use small cordless
        screwdrivers with a custom gearing mechanism that operates a
        bolt-cutter. With that they can even cut through thick steel-bar type
        bike locks in a few seconds, without making any noise. I saw that in a
        police report lately but I can't find a link with a photo of the device
        now, unfortunately. It's really quite ingenious from a technical point
        of view. It seems the only way to protect against theft is to ride an
        old bicycle.
       
          tjr225 wrote 2 days ago:
          Sadly, things have gotten to the point where I would not leave my
          bicycle unattended outside for any meaningful amount of time in any
          big city in the world. Lock or not. I even have stories of
          friends/coworkers having their bikes stolen out of protected storage
          in their apartment buildings.
       
          klyrs wrote 2 days ago:
          Couldn't find the exact device, but this matches the general
          description...
          
   URI    [1]: https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/7-ton-cutters-crimpers/ba...
       
          analog31 wrote 2 days ago:
          My bike is protected by anti-theft aesthetics (tm). Also, parking
          next to nicer bikes with less secure locks. This really hit me when I
          got said bike from an auction, it had a cable lock attached to it,
          and when I got it home, the cable lock was gone in about 15 seconds
          based on comments I had read in a web forum.
       
          josefresco wrote 2 days ago:
          Two (lame) lock stories below:
          
          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.
          
          Security theater.
       
            spicybright wrote 2 days ago:
            If you want to lose even more faith in security, the Lock Picking
            Lawyer on youtube has videos of him opening/breaking into almost
            any kind of lock you can imagine.
            
   URI      [1]: https://www.youtube.com/c/lockpickinglawyer
       
            jmnicolas wrote 2 days ago:
            > Security theater.
            
            I'm always amazed how the Lockpicking Lawyer on YouTube defeats any
            lock within seconds. I think the hardest one was a couple minutes.
       
            BrandoElFollito wrote 2 days ago:
            I locked my bike at th eoffice and lost the key. Went to security,
            they gave me a bolt cutter.
            
            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 .
       
            csunbird wrote 2 days ago:
            expensive locks and complex mechanisms also signal that says "hey,
            there is something valueable here!"
       
          mrsuprawsm wrote 2 days ago:
          Rental bikes such as "Swapfiets" (swap bike, [1] ) are fairly popular
          in NL these days. Since they're owned by a company, there seems to be
          less incentive to steal them (since I suppose you can't sell them to
          unsuspecting buyers in the service area), and if you as a renter get
          the bike nicked, then you only pay a token sum (€40-60) for a
          replacement. They also fix your bike for you when it breaks or you
          get a flat tyre.
          
          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.
          
   URI    [1]: https://swapfiets.nl/
       
            nojs wrote 2 days ago:
            They also have a beautiful logo, and branding in general.
       
          1-more wrote 2 days ago:
          In NYC you can occasionally see a nice Kryptonite lock hanging on a
          bike rack with one neat cut through it from a battery powered angle
          grinder. Nothing can stand up to those unfortunately. It really is
          just a matter of not leaving it alone for long enough that a well
          equipped thief can spot it.
       
          hutzlibu wrote 2 days ago:
          "It seems the only way to protect against theft is to ride an old
          bicycle."
          
          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?)
       
            hexedpackets wrote 2 days ago:
            There's a complete lack of enforcement for bike thefts (at least in
            the US cities I've lived in). Even if you have GPS coordinates that
            unequivocally lead to the thief, the police won't take any action.
            Maybe this is different in other countries.
       
            dkdk8283 wrote 2 days ago:
            If you’re in the country just drive
       
            1-more wrote 2 days ago:
            In a city it won’t tell you which apartment the bike is in. You
            need to remember to charge it up: the solutions I’ve seen don’t
            have super long battery lives. And you need to pay monthly for the
            data connection. It would be cool if you could combine that
            tracking with an insurance policy that bundled everything together
            especially talking to the reticent-to-help police.
       
          executesorder66 wrote 2 days ago:
          > cordless screwdrivers
          
          Do screwdrivers typically have cords? And if so, what for?
       
            namdnay wrote 2 days ago:
            Probably not a native English speaker. They mean a cordless
            driver/drill
       
              nathanm412 wrote 2 days ago:
              Electric screwdrivers with not much more torque than a human hand
              can apply are pretty common and small. They spin much faster than
              I can turn a screwdriver and stop before they can strip any
              screw. With the right gearing and modification, I can see one
              easily cut through a bike lock.
              
   URI        [1]: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=cordless+screwdriver&ia...
       
            xenonite wrote 2 days ago:
            I guess a cord protects a screwdriver from being stolen.
       
          im3w1l wrote 2 days ago:
          My bike was stolen enough times that I gave up. I don't own one
          anymore.
       
            verbify wrote 2 days ago:
            I bought a folding bike, never bought a lock and that worked for
            me.
       
          phreeza wrote 2 days ago:
          Something like this i guess?
          
   URI    [1]: https://youtu.be/BXY_fqDBg5E
       
            adrianN wrote 2 days ago:
            At least some bike locks are resistant to this attack:
            
   URI      [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXoS_HB1I3o
       
          healeycodes wrote 2 days ago:
          > It seems the only way to protect against theft is to ride an old
          bicycle.
          
          I like this blog on that topic: [1] > 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.
          
   URI    [1]: https://calpaterson.com/bicycle-threat-model.html
       
            spicybright wrote 2 days ago:
            Bonus points, he'll get to embarrass her when she gets a bit older
            with it!
            
            This is a good idea though. Anything that makes your bike
            identifiable is a good deterrent.
       
            devoutsalsa wrote 2 days ago:
            I knew a guy with a similar philosophy.  He spray painted his bike
            ugly color.
       
              jspash wrote 2 days ago:
              Something like this?
              
   URI        [1]: https://iamspecialized.medium.com/very-special-things-ru...
       
                JaggerFoo wrote 2 days ago:
                This is brilliant.
                
                I also like that it's powered by a "Meat Motor".
                
                Cheers.
       
              kadoban wrote 2 days ago:
              If you want something less permanent, you can use some
              strategically placed duck tape and make it look like a beater.
       
          Freak_NL wrote 2 days ago:
          These days not having an e-bike is probably one of the easiest
          deterrents. Next step seems to be to avoid design bikes like Van
          Moof. And finally, have your bike look used.
          
          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).
       
            mulcyber wrote 1 day ago:
            The only real protection against theft is not having your bike
            among the most valuable and/or least secure ones on the rack.
            
            Most protection can be circonvented if the thief is savy and
            equipped.
       
            henryaj wrote 2 days ago:
            On the contrary, VanMoof promise to get your stolen bike back
            within two weeks or they replace it. Had mine stolen in London;
            they located it the same day and got it back to me the following
            week.
            
            Combined with an AirTag hidden discreetly in the frame and I'm
            unafraid of locking it up basically anywhere.
       
              spicybright wrote 2 days ago:
              Wow, how does a company manage that? GPS? How do they have a
              legal right to determine who actually owns it?
       
              jareklupinski wrote 2 days ago:
              for a fee [1] 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?
              
   URI        [1]: https://www.vanmoof.com/en-US/peace-of-mind
       
                trulyme wrote 2 days ago:
                > We can only recover or replace a stolen bike if the Theft
                Defense system was armed and the Kick Lock was properly engaged
                when your bike was stolen.
                
                They also recover the bike only up to three times in 3-year
                timespan. Still, sounds like a great service!
       
                  mbg721 wrote 2 days ago:
                  That sounds like two more times than anybody else would
                  recover it.
       
                    trulyme wrote 1 day ago:
                    True, I find the service more than fair.
       
            pjmlp wrote 2 days ago:
            >  And finally, have your bike look used.
            
            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.
       
              emaginniss wrote 2 days ago:
              Were you ever able to find your acquaintance?
       
                pjmlp wrote 2 days ago:
                The bike, that is what I get by not proofreading.
       
            owenwil wrote 2 days ago:
            It’s interesting because in my 5 years in the Netherlands, the
            general opinion was the opposite of this: bike theft is such a
            common occurrence because everyone rides the same, probably stolen
            and resold, black bike that you should ride a new, design bike that
            stands out, like a VanMoof–because no thief would be dumb enough
            to go for it since it would be obvious where you got it (and more
            importantly, almost certainly registered/traceable vs an old
            clunker).
       
              WelcomeShorty wrote 2 days ago:
              Funny anecdote, but the initial reason for us to all drive shit
              looking bikes was the reason that these did not get stolen so
              often :)
              
              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. [1] (sorry, Dutch only)
              
   URI        [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n53U_HlIs_Q
       
            mrsuprawsm wrote 2 days ago:
            I do wonder how often Van Moof bikes get stolen, despite their
            tracking features. Fear of theft is the one thing that puts me off
            buying one.
       
              owenwil wrote 2 days ago:
              I had two stolen over the years I owned one in Amsterdam. The
              first one was recovered in about a week. The second was never
              found, but they replace it when they don’t find it as a part of
              that guarantee–which is why it’s actually a really great
              deal.
       
                mrsuprawsm wrote 2 days ago:
                It seems like they now only offer this for 3 years, which isn't
                great, since hopefully you'd own the bike for a lot longer than
                3 years.
                
   URI          [1]: https://support.vanmoof.com/en/support/solutions/artic...
       
          maeln wrote 2 days ago:
          With e-bike costing over thousand euros, bike stealing has become way
          more lucrative, attracting  more and better thief ...
       
            globular-toast wrote 2 days ago:
            Erm.. my non-e-bike costs well over a thousand euros! But I guess
            e-bikes have made "normal" people consider spending that much money
            on a bike. People into biking have always been spending this much
            money on bikes although oddly it seems to surprise many people,
            even though they'll happily pay 10x that for a car that requires
            fossil fuel to do anything.
       
              maeln wrote 1 day ago:
              Funny thing, I knew when I wrote my comment that they would be at
              least one answer mentioning enthusiast with their fancy all
              carbon fibber road bike that cost has much as a car :) .
              
              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.
       
              kuschku wrote 2 days ago:
              As someone who never owned a car or drivers license, and who has
              been cycling for her whole life: no, thousands of euros for a
              regular bicycle is not normal.
       
                usrusr wrote 2 days ago:
                Meanwhile, for enthusiast bikes, 10k€ has stopped being
                exotic. I do blame it on e-bikes, because enthusiasts will
                happily pay whatever is required to distance themselves from
                whatever the average consumer does.
       
                  henryaj wrote 2 days ago:
                  > I do blame it on e-bikes, because enthusiasts will happily
                  pay whatever is required to distance themselves from whatever
                  the average consumer does
                  
                  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].
                  
                  0 -
                  
   URI            [1]: https://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regulations/nieuws/2019...
       
                  kuschku wrote 2 days ago:
                  It’s honestly entirely foreign to me, I grew up in an
                  environment where everyone cycled, but that meant most bikes
                  were somewhere between omafiets (old, used bikes) and very
                  cheap mass produced bikes. To me a bicycle is a mode of
                  transportation, not a sports device or a lifestyle product.
                  
                  What would they even do with such a bike?
       
                    usrusr wrote 2 days ago:
                    Certainly not ride it to the grocery store. Why do golfers
                    by golf clubs? Not for the grocery store. And yachts aren't
                    routinely used for sailing to the office either. The big
                    lure of the enthusiast bike is doing things because you
                    can. In a good year I can do rides for hundreds of
                    kilometers in a day, I certainly wouldn't want to do that
                    on my omafiets (which is just fine for anything <5km). 2020
                    was the first year in ages that I haven't crossed the Alps
                    at least once. And sure, you don't need a bike costing 10k
                    for that, in fact as it happens the bike I prefer for those
                    occasions is the cheapest of the enthusiast bikes that I
                    own, but that's beside the point. How many people do you
                    own that drive a car that costs 10000 more than the
                    cheapest car that would be perfectly adequate for the
                    driving they do? Chances are most of them don't even
                    consider themselves car enthusiasts!
       
                    pjc50 wrote 2 days ago:
                    Like NFTs, the important question is not "what can you do
                    with it" but "how much did you spend on it". It's a
                    
   URI              [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
       
                      usrusr wrote 2 days ago:
                      At last those bikes are clearly in the subset of veblen
                      goods where you need more than just cash to gain the
                      status. A bike not ridden "adequately" (whatever that
                      means) is like owning art without even pretending to know
                      something about the art in question. You could do it as a
                      provocative statement, but that would get old quickly.
       
                globular-toast wrote 2 days ago:
                I didn't say thousands actually (also specifically said it
                wasn't normal). It's just that I own a fairly mid-high end road
                bike (that I bought 10 years ago) that cost more than €1000.
                I used to ride a road bike that cost around €800 as my
                commuter bike until it got stolen. The quality at this price
                point is definitely worth it, with diminishing returns above
                it. I would strongly recommend upgrading to a road or town bike
                at this price point as it's such a huge improvement and will
                last you decades.
       
                  kuschku wrote 2 days ago:
                  I’d honestly consider 800€ already enthusiast grade, but
                  I’m interested. What does your 800€ bicycle have that
                  mine doesn’t have?
                  
                  For reference, I’m currently using [1] (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.
                  
   URI            [1]: https://www.boc24.de/p/bocas-bari-trapez/217333/
       
                    ufmace wrote 1 day ago:
                    IMO, most of the real improvements are seen going from
                    $300-ish to $1200-ish. Going higher doesn't give you more
                    features so much as more quality and durability. In my
                    experience, if you ride a lot of miles consistently on a
                    cheap bike, parts will wear out or break pretty fast.
                    Especially if the terrain is at least mildly rough, as
                    found on most commutes and country roads.
                    
                    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.
       
                    klyrs wrote 2 days ago:
                    > What does your 800€ bicycle have that mine doesn’t
                    have?
                    
                    For that much money, you could afford... a Rohloff hub?  No
                    frame though
       
                    globular-toast wrote 2 days ago:
                    Yours isn't a low end bike and this might be the price
                    point for you if you aren't enthusiastic about it at all. I
                    don't know a lot about town bikes, though. I prefer road
                    bikes (even for commuting and getting around town with
                    panniers).
                    
                    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.
       
                      kuschku wrote 2 days ago:
                      But what’s that gonna provide for me? There’s
                      diminishing returns beyond this point, the efficiency
                      gains are in the single digit percentages or often only
                      placebo effects, and I’ve never even seen a bicycle
                      that stopped being used out of old age. A new coat of
                      paint every decade or two, replacing the tires and brake
                      pads every two years, and maybe the chain every decade,
                      and it’ll run forever.
                      
                      I feel like it’s just like people buying expensive
                      sports cars, purely because they can, not because they
                      actually need any of it.
       
                        tjr225 wrote 2 days ago:
                        > But what’s that gonna provide for me?
                        
                        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.
       
                        snovv_crash wrote 2 days ago:
                        Lighter bikes are more comfortable to ride - they feel
                        nimble. Modern frames absorb bumps while still being
                        stiff to allow maximum leg power to actually go through
                        the drivetrain instead of frame flex. Disc brakes make
                        an enormous difference if you have long downhill
                        sections or regularly ride in the wet. Sure there are
                        diminishing returns, but better components really are
                        better, and not just 20g lighter.
                        
                        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
       
              Panzer04 wrote 2 days ago:
              In fairness, a car represents more than 10x the manufacturing
              effort. A 10k fancy road bike is going to be much easier to
              manufacture than the equivalent small 10k hatchback.
       
                globular-toast wrote 2 days ago:
                High manufacturing cost does not mean high value. A business is
                just finding something where the value is higher than the
                manufacturing cost. A bicycle has higher margins because it is
                truly a marvel of technology, while a car is basically just
                "yeah it will work if we throw enough fossil fuel at it".
       
                  namdnay wrote 2 days ago:
                  A bicycle has higher margins because the volumes are much
                  smaller. The engineering that goes into even the cheapest of
                  Dacias is hundreds of times more complex
       
                    globular-toast wrote 2 days ago:
                    > A bicycle has higher margins because the volumes are much
                    smaller.
                    
                    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.
       
                      namdnay wrote 2 days ago:
                      There are far more bicycles than cars, but 99% of these
                      are very basic cost-efficient designs , probably sold for
                      less than 100eur new
                      
                      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
       
              darkwater wrote 2 days ago:
              Yes and no. E-bikes start at 2-3k EUR and the norm is 5-6k.
              Obviously you can buy a road bike for 15k EUR as well but most
              will gravitate toward the 1-3K EUR range.
       
                gruturo wrote 2 days ago:
                > Yes and no. E-bikes start at 2-3k EUR and the norm is 5-6k.
                
                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.
       
                  darkwater wrote 12 hours 38 min ago:
                  I have to admit I'm not that into ebikes but these were the
                  price I casually saw in bike shops. But maybe they were just
                  showing off the  best models.
       
                verbify wrote 2 days ago:
                My partner recently bought a folding ebike for 600 GBP and it
                wasn't even their entry level model. It is a great bike. 2-3k
                EUR is not entry level.
       
                namdnay wrote 2 days ago:
                Nah… 2k is already a good ebike with a central motor and big
                shocks. Your entry level commuter ebike is around 1k
       
                bbarnett wrote 2 days ago:
                15k euro!!!  What, is it made of carbon nanotubes or
                something?!
                
                Clearly more of a fashion statement, than quality difference.
       
                  darkwater wrote 12 hours 37 min ago:
                  Well, those are pro models, and you pay the brand as well,
                  but I definitely saw a Bianchi top of the line at ~20k EUR
                  (before discounts etc)
       
                    bbarnett wrote 7 hours 16 min ago:
                    Crazy.    That's like a 10M dollar car, IMO.
       
          aigo wrote 2 days ago:
          We have had this level of professionalism in London for some time
          now. It's not necessarily true that you must ride an older, uglier
          bike, though this will work.
          
          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.
       
            zimpenfish wrote 2 days ago:
            Yeah, if I lock mine up anywhere in London (even in workplace bike
            stores), I always use three (different) locks.    Faff and heavy to
            carry but, touch wood, no-one has stolen a bike of mine yet in 20
            years.
       
            usrusr wrote 2 days ago:
            > All that is needed is to be the least stealable bicycle in the
            rack.
            
            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...
       
              spicybright wrote 2 days ago:
              Off topic, but this reminds me of that bit from Trailer Park Boys
              where they steal a rack. So good. [1] (language warning if you've
              never seen the show)
              
   URI        [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODIkw4MAeVg
       
            mcv wrote 2 days ago:
            Professionalism in bike theft isn't so much about tools, but about
            organisation. Professional bike thieves will have a van, load it up
            with exactly the bikes they already know they can sell, and drive
            their load to the other side of the country (if your country is
            small like Netherland, that is), and sell them there. Or maybe sell
            them in a different country.
            
            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.
       
              aigo wrote 2 days ago:
              That's really interesting and completely the opposite to here.
              
              In London, most stolen bikes are expensive (or expensive-looking)
              and they are primarily resold within London.
       
              Freak_NL wrote 2 days ago:
              In the Netherlands they won't attempt to sell them here. Too much
              risk with frame numbers etched in and other ways of marking it.
              The safest bet is to move them out of the country on the day they
              steal them; way out to Eastern Europe.
       
            fy20 wrote 2 days ago:
            I had a bike stolen 10 years ago from an underground garage, they
            just ignored the locks and cut through the rack
       
              spicybright wrote 2 days ago:
              Had 2 stolen so far, cut the bike lock off. I buy my bikes around
              $50 each or fix up side of the road ones. Basically disposable,
              given that I enjoy the process of fixing.
       
            pmontra wrote 2 days ago:
            Another tip: lock your bike close to more expensive ones.
       
              techdragon wrote 2 days ago:
              This is the bike theft version of “I don’t have to outrun the
              bear/tiger, i just have to outrun the slowest other person.”
       
        squarefoot wrote 2 days ago:
        Just one more reminder that when one puts something online, it stays
        there forever. The innocent photo of someone in his 20s dancing naked
        while drunk at a party that today could award him bonus social points
        among peers, would destroy his political career 30 years later.
       
          _-david-_ wrote 2 days ago:
          >The innocent photo of someone in his 20s dancing naked while drunk
          at a party that today could award him bonus social points among
          peers, would destroy his political career 30 years later
          
          We have a politician in either blackface or KKK outfit. I don't think
          dancing naked at a party is enough.
       
            varjag wrote 2 days ago:
            OK make it a 'her'.
       
        jackvalentine wrote 2 days ago:
        To me this story is about how garbage most illustrative imagery on the
        internet is.
       
          cturtle wrote 2 days ago:
          That reminds me of the many  wonderful soldering stock images that
          show the user holding the metal tip enclosure rather than the handle.
       
          srmarm wrote 2 days ago:
          Absolutely, I occasionally have to buy stock photos and am shocked at
          how overpriced and cheesy they are. On the flip side you've got
          hordes of quite talented wannabe influencers putting our content for
          nothing. There's surely a market to be made there getting reach and
          money to the influencers and imagery to publishers.
       
          dustintrex wrote 2 days ago:
          Why? Virtually all stock photography involving people is staged, and
          that's OK, because they're meant to be just that, illustrations.
       
            jackvalentine wrote 2 days ago:
            They are all so light in relevance that the content would be better
            if there were no imagery at all. None of these articles are
            improved by having a stolen staged image of a bike thief in them.
            
            Might as well draw a picture of a bike in MS paint. Same effect.
       
              GuB-42 wrote 1 day ago:
              I think that a picture is easier to get at first glance than the
              words.
              
              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.
       
                jackvalentine wrote 1 day ago:
                I understand what you’re saying but perhaps the reader should
                be required to put the effort in to read 11 words rather than
                seeing a shorthand and jumping to conclusion!
       
                  GuB-42 wrote 23 hours 19 min ago:
                  I am strongly in favor of the least effort principle. So if
                  an article can spare me a second of effort, I take it. I
                  particularly appreciate it when a journalist 
                  recognizes that their readers attention is precious and gets
                  to the point without wasting it. (I know, ads, but that's
                  another subject)
                  
                  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, ...
       
                    jackvalentine wrote 20 hours 42 min ago:
                    In my opinion the least effort principle here undermines
                    the actual purpose of the article though. It’s not about
                    being virtuous it’s about them actually taking the time
                    to understand 11 words without shortcuts which you may get
                    wrong.
                    
                    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.
       
            usrusr wrote 2 days ago:
            Makes me wonder if perhaps one day there could come an irreversible
            fashion of, well, illustrating the illustrative nature of stock
            photos like that by uniformly pushing them through your
            publication's style-GAN. Almost surprises me that this hasn't
            happened yet.
       
        javajosh wrote 2 days ago:
        As a father, I would be mildly concerned about this notoriety,
        especially as a traveler. Airport authorities are not known for the
        subtlety of their understanding, and it is entirely plausible that this
        man might be arrested and jailed on the basis of not only being
        photographed committing a crime, but now admitting to it, calling
        himself a thief.
        
        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.
       
          srmarm wrote 2 days ago:
          I can barely read your comment as it's been down voted but two
          theoretical risks come to mind. One being some ML decision maker that
          scrapes the web to build a profile of someone and decides this person
          is a criminal.
          
          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.
       
          sergers wrote 2 days ago:
          He was not photographed committing a crime.
          
          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
       
            javajosh wrote 2 days ago:
            This is an expression of contempt for authority, and is not a
            criticism of the OP. The fear I recommend is not tinfoil hat stuff,
            it's just an unfortunate byproduct of broken minds running a broken
            justice system.
            
            You should also know that posting on a forum with "hacker" in the
            title is dangerous.
       
              dpifke wrote 2 days ago:
              Are you also arguing it's "dangerous" for Michael Hall (aka
              notorious serial killer Dexter Morgan) to walk through an
              airport?
       
                bryanrasmussen wrote 2 days ago:
                probably not dangerous, but I do remember reading an article
                maybe 20 years ago where some lady playing a villain in a soap
                opera complained about being accosted at the supermarket and
                yelled at for their onscreen shenanigans.
       
                javajosh wrote 2 days ago:
                It's the unknown people who say or do unusual things that risk
                running afoul of the authorities. Hall is famous enough and
                what he does is "usual" enough he's probably okay. But writing
                a public website that declares you're a bike thief in the
                headline? I'm thinking that a lot of LEOs aren't going to
                bother reading the rest of it, call it probable cause and grind
                up another person's life in the pre-trial torture machine that
                is American justice. And their supervisor is going to say, "Job
                well done. Too bad this one got away." Sorry to be cynical like
                this, but it's not without reason.
       
                  Talanes wrote 2 days ago:
                  Law enforcement isn't reading random cycling blogs looking
                  for admissions of crime. It's hard enough to get their
                  attention with a call of "Hey, there's this crime happening
                  right in front of me and it's causing a pretty big scene."
       
                    bryanrasmussen wrote 2 days ago:
                    Our new product - The Inditer Pro - uses state of the art
                    machine learning to crawl the web and identify travelers
                    coming into your country as criminals! You will be able to
                    proactively lock up potential threats and keep the
                    population safe, all thanks to the expertise of the Inditer
                    Pro.
                    
                    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.
       
                      jaclaz wrote 2 days ago:
                      >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.
       
                        bryanrasmussen wrote 2 days ago:
                        No, but if you are arrested through the high quality
                        solutions Indite Pro provides you can use our partner
                        app Paroll-io to bail yourself out with our hot new
                        cryptocurrency $ukka$ which has end to end $.
       
                          javajosh wrote 2 days ago:
                          Now the interesting question is this: if your
                          government did something like this - what would you,
                          could you, do about it? That's the scary question,
                          because the answer is "almost nothing". That's
                          especially true if "Inditer Pro" had, say, a 90%
                          success rate. (Success is defined as "% convicted".
                          To solve this you offer a choice: plea bargain or
                          indefinite detention until a trial. It would be more
                          correct to accuse people of random crimes, cuff them
                          and put them in a cruiser for a few hours, strip them
                          and put them in jail clothes, jail them for a day or
                          two, put them in shackles for hours before a
                          "hearing", and then see how many plea deals you get.
                          I suspect your "clearance rate" would be over 90%,
                          too)
       
                            jaclaz wrote 1 day ago:
                            Oww, come on, be realistic.
                            
                            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.
       
        wpasc wrote 2 days ago:
        I think it makes more sense than the author expects. Bike thefts
        probably are not frequently caught with a high wuality camera, still
        pose, proper lighting, photogenically bland clothing choice, etc. such
        that it seems like a stock photo for bike theft. Only another
        purposeful photo of bike theft that is similarly or moreso staged
        should outdo it, but for general purpose image use (like a powerpoint
        or something) the photo kind of makes sense as a popular choice.
       
          severak_cz wrote 2 days ago:
          Author of this article simply made very good photo of bicycle theft.
       
          charlieyu1 wrote 2 days ago:
          Buying a stock photo for commercial use costs like $0.3 each if you
          are buying in bulk, which I assume that’s how it should work for a
          media company.
       
        claviska wrote 2 days ago:
        > And the irony, of course, is this: the pictured bike itself was never
        stolen, but the rushed magazine photo has been – by hundreds of
        people, perpetuating a fake crime over and over.
        
        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.
       
          franciscop wrote 2 days ago:
          Note that the article author represented in the images seems not to
          be the author of the images themselves. AND since it was done for a
          company in all likehood neither the person represented in the image
          nor the person taking the picture hold the copyright of the picture
          (since it's a different person and not the author with a tripod as
          implied in the article).
       
          ThunderSizzle wrote 2 days ago:
          My understanding is that copyright is only honored by the legal
          system if it's been enforced by the copyright holder.
          
          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.
       
          lozenge wrote 2 days ago:
          No, copyright isn't forfeited like that, only trademarks are.
          
          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.'
       
            mindslight wrote 2 days ago:
            > No, copyright isn't forfeited like that
            
            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.
       
          boomboomsubban wrote 2 days ago:
          The now defunct magazine presumably held the copyright, and it's
          entirely possible the licensed the rights to a third party.
       
            usrusr wrote 2 days ago:
            Given bankruptcy law, how much choice would they even have?
       
          toast0 wrote 2 days ago:
          Using a photo like this in an article about how photos are used
          without permission is probably fair use. Using a photo like this as
          part of your article on bike theft without permission is probably not
          fair use.
       
          nash wrote 2 days ago:
          Never is the simple answer.  Otherwise all copyright would have
          pretty much been eliminated by the pirate bay.
          
          Enforcement and collection of the damages is a totally different
          issue.
       
            jeroenhd wrote 2 days ago:
            In the US, the picture would become public domain 70 years after
            the death of the author.
            
            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.
       
              dragonwriter wrote 2 days ago:
              > Fair use is a defence to use in a lawsuit, after all, not a
              right
              
              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.
       
          Nursie wrote 2 days ago:
          I don't believe one is required to defend copyright.
          
          Trademarks, certainly, but not copyright.
       
        walrus01 wrote 2 days ago:
        see also: bike thief 2012
        
   URI  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGttmR2DTY8
       
          kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote 2 days ago:
          I was hoping your link was Freezepop
          
   URI    [1]: https://youtu.be/W3eLl3pQGoY
       
       
   DIR <- back to front page