# Best Type Of Bike Lock?



## pbar (21 Mar 2008)

After a new bike lock, and just after opinions on what to get. Browsing through my Argos catalogue show 3 main types - thick clunky chain covered in a rubbery plastic, or the thin long coiled up wire type, or the U shaped one.
I can't help thinking that those U shaped one's are a little limiting as there isn't as much freedom to lock the bike up to some railings, lamposts and stuff, and the thin coiled wire type seem too easy to cut through. This leaves the think clunky chain type which I'm favouring at the moment.


----------



## Danny (21 Mar 2008)

D-locks (as they are known) are generally much more secure than a cable lock and come in varying lengths up to at least 30cms so you may be able to find one that is long enough for your needs.

Or as Mr Paul suggests go for a D-lock that comes with a cable and get the best of both worlds.

If you have an expensive bike and/or live in a high crime area I would invest in a decent lock (£30+). Abus and Kryptonite locks generally do well in tests. 

Cheaper locks should only be seen as a deterrent against opportunistic thefts as knowledgeable and well equipped thieves can cut through cheap locks in seconds. But depending on the value of your bike and where you are planning to leave it a cheap lock may be good enough. 

It is also worth noting that it can be easier for thieves to attack longer locks as they can move them around to get them into the most vulnerable position to be attacked, so don't buy one longer than you need.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Mar 2008)

Lengthy, but welll worth while reading through....


Quick Release TV - Locks


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Mar 2008)

Also worth watching....


----------



## fossyant (21 Mar 2008)

Check out some of the on-line bike shops - loads of locks available - I use two 'gold' standard locks - a U lock through the rear of the frame round one end of a sheffield stand - filled with the reat wheel and spokes so no bottle jacks can get in, and then a 5kg chain through the front of the frame and front wheel.


----------



## RedBike (21 Mar 2008)

Ring your insurance company. They will have a list of approved locks. Unless you're using an approved lock you probably wont be insured. 

As above, you will probably need a Lock that is rated as Sold Secure gold; and some way of locking everything (ie the wheels/saddle) to the frame.


----------



## punkypossum (21 Mar 2008)

> Sheldon Brown recommends getting a small D-lock and locking the bike up through the back wheel between seat- and chain-stays to something.
> 
> His argument about using a small one is that it's harder to get something into the loop to try to break it, and it's easier to carry.
> 
> ...




I got the same one, it's pretty good and not disastrously heavy...


----------



## Arch (22 Mar 2008)

pbar said:


> I can't help thinking that those U shaped one's are a little limiting *as there isn't as much freedom to lock the bike up to some railings, lamposts and stuff*, and the thin coiled wire type seem too easy to cut through. This leaves the think clunky chain type which I'm favouring at the moment.



I have a bog standard D-lock, probably came from Halfords originally, I can't remember, and I've hardly ever had trouble finding things to lock my bike to with it. With railings I sometimes have to feed the bars through the railings to get close enough, but most drainpipes work fine - you maybe have to let the front wheel swing round a bit to accomodate the width of the bars. The better 'filled' your lock is, the better, as others have said - less space for leverage. Carry a cable extension as well, like Mr Paul, and you're covered for most eventualities - if really necessary, you can use the D-lock as a padlock on the cable, and loop the cable round your solid object.

Also, remember to park your bike somewhere nice and public if you can, preferably among a lot of other bikes in a rack - and you'll certainly have no trouble locking to a rack with a D lock. Bikes hidden away in dark corners or alleys give a thief lots of time to work on them unobserved.

There is a theory that says you should spend at least 10% of the value of your bike on a lock, so get the best you can afford.


----------



## dubman (22 Mar 2008)

there is a free lock in this month's mtb rider


----------



## Twenty Inch (22 Mar 2008)

CTC mag recently did an analysis of locks and theft. "Gold" "silver" and so on locks are rated against attack with hacksaw, screwdriver, putty knife, nail file, Swiss Army knife tweezers and eyebrow curlers. Well, not quite, but they are NOT tested against the tools that a thief uses. Why not? Because thieves use heavy duty bolt croppers and stubby hydraulic jacks which can break through anything. The longest duration against attack in the CTC tests was 42 seconds. The organisation that provides this "gold" standard is under investigation by trading standards for basically hoodwinking the motorcycling and cycling public.

So where does that leave us? Well, several pointers. 

Don't lock a decent bike in public - use a crappy hack or disguise your bike well.

Lock it next to a nicer one - a thief will take that.

Use several locks.

Leave as little space in your D-lock as possible. This makes it difficult to get a stubby in.

If you can leave your lock at work, then get a great big chain and padlock.

If you are locking your bike in a garage at home, install a ground anchor and lock it to that.

But really, if an equipped thief has tools and time, you won't stop him nicking your bike.


----------



## pbar (24 Mar 2008)

Thanks for all the advice, appreciate it.
A D lock and a chain it is then. Then most scenarios will be covered and, one way or the other, I'll always use both.


----------



## wafflycat (24 Mar 2008)

As pointed out, the thing is there's no lock that can guarantee to make your bike theft-proof from a thief determined to have *your* bike. But most thefts are opportunistic, so the key is to make your bike less attractive to the opportunistic thief. More than one lock is, IMO, the best way to go - plus removal of stuff such as lights, computer when you park up your bike, also if there's bikes that are unlocked, a thief will go for the easy target before the more difficult one. It's also been pointed out that you need to check with your insurance company as to what lock is required in order that you are covered. This is true. I'll add in check with the insurance company *how* and *where* they expect the bike to be locked e.g. to an 'immovable object' is a common one.


----------



## RedBike (24 Mar 2008)

Most insurance companies have quite a few stipulations. For example mine isn't covered if I leave it in a public place for more than 12hours or if the bike (or any bit of the bike) is stolen without the lock(s) being compromised.


----------



## davidwalton (25 Mar 2008)

RedBike said:


> Most insurance companies have quite a few stipulations. For example mine isn't covered if I leave it in a public place for more than 12hours or if the bike (or any bit of the bike) is stolen without the lock(s) being compromised.



and mine isn't covered if at a school, Uni, etc, unless locked within a locked room.


----------



## Tynan (25 Mar 2008)

there's some variables to consider here I suggest, like where you're leaving it and for how long

I'm using a tin pot chain and padlock at the moment because it's a bike rack in a secure estate with guards and cctv

And the dodgy bit is Birbeck college but even then it's not a thoroughfare and there's security guards about, given that I'm there three times a week I'm going to get a dinky D lock as suggested and then a silly great chain and lump padlock from a locks smith

you might be surprised at how much cheaper chains and padlocks are when they're not bike specific


----------



## davidwalton (25 Mar 2008)

> You're right you know. This stuff isn't bike specific, and it's really cheap-
> 
> http://www.ashleychains.co.uk/detail-20.php?CatType=D1



it's also plastic. The Security chains on that site, plus a padlock are similar in cost to many Chain locks I have seen on Bike sites.

only time it gets cheap is if buying in bulk, and few individuals require loads of chain.


----------



## davidwalton (25 Mar 2008)

> You missed the joke.



I always do


----------



## fossyant (25 Mar 2008)

I've got a large Onguard Beast chain - and it is a Beast - about £30-£35 if you look round (chain reaction did do them - can't see item now) and it's solid - weight is almost 10lbs - took it to work in the car at a weekend rather than damage my rucksack. That coupled with a D-lock in a public place (overlooked by colleagues offices) should be about as secure as I can get, bearing in mind other bikes are generally badly locked.

I don't buy the make your bike scruffy, I see a few like that at the Universities locally (i.e. taped up and stuff) but one second longer look and you can see the quality of the components... but I've got a trained (cyclist's) eye.


----------



## Tynan (25 Mar 2008)

why the joke?

locksmiths sell proper security kit, including chains and padlocks you're very unlikely to find in a bike shop or diy shop


----------



## davidwalton (25 Mar 2008)

Don't forget that a chain and lock has to be approved by your insurance company, or no payout if stolen.

It does not matter that the chain and lock combo you use is better either. Unless it has been through the recognised standards check, it is worth nothing. It will be the standards authority that make the lock more expensive as well.


----------



## davidwalton (25 Mar 2008)

> It depends on your insurance company. Some aren't bothered as long as you tell them that it was locked up and give a crime number. Others can be much more specific.



Some aren't bothered??????? which?

Every Insurance companies intent is to not pay unless they have to. If it is not openly apparent about any lock requirement, then require from the Insurance company a signed legal statement that it doesn't matter what lock you use as long as you do use a lock.

The 3 main Cycle Insurance companies all require specific standard of lock to be used. Those being EandL, Butterworth, and CycleGuard. House insurance policies that also cover a bike, either in part or whole, may be different as the risk is not based solely on the cycle.

I have been down the path of expecting reason from insurance companies only to discover that unless you can prove 100% that you are in the right, they don't care. Make sure you will still be covered by using a £1.99 lock and chain on your £500 plus bike before........

to me, that is not taking reasonable care, and probably covered in some way in the policy (hidden somewhere).


----------



## davidwalton (25 Mar 2008)

> 3 main cycle insurance companies????? Most household policies will cover bikes away from home. But you've noted that yourself above. I've used several, and none yet have stipulated a type of lock. i've known several people have payouts from stolen bikes who weren't asked what type of lock they were using.
> 
> Unless you're riding a particularly expensive bike which your home insurance company won't cover, you're wasting your money going with a cycle-specific company.



Try buying a decent (in my mind) recumbent cycle for much less than £1,000. Try to get a house insurance not to laugh at you when you ask if they will then cover your £2,000 recumbent under the house policy.

Try getting a house insurance company to cover ONLY your cycle.

Most house policies WILL cover cheaper cycles, and a few will cover more expensive ones. Rely on a cheap lock on a decent bike and you then take the gamble of insurance paying up. If you are lucky, great. I no longer play the gamble = I check. If you don't, or think because others managed to get a payout then it will happen for you, I hope it does.

BTW- I am talking about standards of lock, not a specific type.


----------



## davidwalton (25 Mar 2008)

> As I said, if you have an expensive bike you'll need to go elsewhere.
> 
> Most of us have house insurance.
> 
> ...



No, we are at that place where you are not reading what I write again, or you are fishing. All I have said is to CHECK with insurance companies, and ENSURE you have a decent lock. If that is wrong, then 

I also have House insurance.

I think £800 is cheaper. Never said it was CHEAP though.

I suggest all cyclists SHOULD have decent locks. Cycle locks are rated up to Gold standard, which MANY insurance companies require, and all cycle specific insurers I checked. The cheaper the bike, the lower the standard of lock required. Perhaps a £800 bike is cheap enough for insurance companies not to care much about?

I NEVER said you or anyone else should pay MORE on insurance, or get cycle specific insurance, but there is a huge difference in security between a CHEAP £1.99 lock, and a Gold standard lock.

If anything here is incorrect In YOUR opinion, then ask. Don't make incorrect statements based on things you THINK I wrote.


----------



## davidwalton (25 Mar 2008)

> I can see what you wrote. You said that a chain and lock has to be approved by your insurance company. Then you quote 3 cycle-specific companies as proof.
> 
> A colleague at work had his bike nicked from outside the office a couple of months back. His insurance company didn't ask what lock he used before they sent the cheque out.
> 
> ...



Point 1. Cycle specific insurers provide on-line the fact that specific STANDARD of locks is required. House insurers do not, but they COULD still require such standard of lock to be used. YOU MUST CHECK.

Point 2. Colleague at work. Good for him. I would still check, and advise others to as well though.

Point 3. cost and being vague. Sorry.. If you buy a bike valued between £50 and £100, spend X amount, if between £100 and £200, spend Y, and if between....etc.

A decent lock is either Silver standard for cheaper bikes, or Gold standard for more costly ones, and those not wanting to lose their bike like me should use at least 2 Gold standard locks of different types. ie. one D-Lock and one Cable or Chain lock.

Point 4. Again with the cycle specific insurance. NEVER NEVER SAID anyone should get cycle specific insurance. I used them as an example to show the standard of lock requirement. NOTHING ELSE!!!

It is generally recognised (hopefully by you as well) that one SHOULD spend in the region of 10% of the cost of a bike on security. A £1.99 lock is a waste of money on a bike, unless sat next to a more appealing bike with no lock on it. Anyone wanting to take that gamble, then fine.

However, lets remember that there are a lot of bikes stolen every year, and the numbers are not going to go down unless cyclists start thinking more about security, and insurance will never be a reasonable cost until the risk of theft is substantially reduced.

The simple answer is to shoot all thieves. Won't then need to worry about cycle theft, and only need insurance for accidents.

Every bike theft has an impact on the insurance we all pay, whether through a house insurance or with a cycle specific insurer. We all pay for the cost of thefts. If you want cheaper insurance, get the message across that security is important. As such, spending a little more on security is NEVER a waste of money.


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

> I'm not going to respond to all of that because it'll get tedious for everyone else. But thanks for clarifying the ambiguity.
> 
> Suffice to say that you don't have to spend loads of money on a lock or on your insurance to get the cover and security that is best for you. As important is where you keep your bike.



Suffice to say that I never disagreed with you in the first place about insurance cost 

However, I would always recommend a decent standard of lock over one that is no standard, and the cheaper the insurance that can be bought that does cover everything required the better.

As for the importance of where you keep your bike. I presume you are now talking about common sense things like locking your bike in a lit public area, rather than a back street which is unlit and where hardly anyone goes. Locking your bike in a public lit area is better, but does not detract from using a decent lock. The public will generally ignore a thieves attempts to steal a bike, unless it is very obvious, and then only if lucky. Best public area are those with CCTV that is working and manned with people that care.

You just can't get away from having decent locks. Yes, everything else matters, but a decent lock matters more. No, you do not need to spend a fortune on locks either. Silver/Gold standard locks can be purchased fairly cheaply, as you have pointed out already.


----------



## Twenty Inch (26 Mar 2008)

Bunfight.

I wonder whether the OP is still around?


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> Bunfight.



No fight. Just making sure that there is no misunderstanding and the things I write between lines are clear


----------



## GrahamG (26 Mar 2008)

M&S home insurance won't laugh at a £2k recumbent, they don't even require items to be listed on the policy if they are worth less than £4k (IIRC). I did ask about lock standards and was told that it just had to be locked to an immovable object. Of course I still have sold secure rated gold/silver locks because I'm paranoid about it


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

GrahamG said:


> M&S home insurance won't laugh at a £2k recumbent, they don't even require items to be listed on the policy if they are worth less than £4k (IIRC). I did ask about lock standards and was told that it just had to be locked to an immovable object. Of course I still have sold secure rated gold/silver locks because I'm paranoid about it



Yes, I intend to look in to House Insurance policies more closely when ours is up for renewal. Until then though, I had no choice but to use a cycle specific insurance.

I have found that insurance companies cover themselves by making general statements like you agree to take care, and ensure care is taken, etc. As long as you can show you are taking care, no problem generally. Just don't expect or rely on an insurance company to pay out when due care has not been taken, unless it makes it absolutely clear in the policy that it doesn't matter whether you have taken reasonable care or not.


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

BTW- Even M&S have the following:-

"To make sure that you are covered you have certain duties which are explained in your Policy Booklet under *"Your Responsibilities Under This Policy"* and *"What You must do in the event of a claim"*. These include your duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injury, loss or damage and what you must do as soon as you are aware of a possible claim under the policy"

Taken from their site at http://www6.marksandspencer.com/pages/default.asp?PageId=PolSum&Product=HI

Notice the reasonable steps to prevent loss bit. No lock at all is not reasonable, and it COULD easily be argued that unless a good standard of lock is used then reasonable steps have not been taken. All depends on what is considered reasonable, and what if any difference there is between an insurers idea of reasonable and yours??

Things can very quickly become very grey, and grey means the Insurers can choose not to payout.


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

> M&S does not stipulate a gold rated lock. If the police supply locks for £5, then a £5 lock recommended by the police is reasonable.



Silly thing is that the locks the Police are recommending at £5 are Silver standard locks (so you said), and I have already clearly stated that the minimum standard should be Silver for cheaper bikes.

I also NEVER stated that M&S require Gold standard either. I only showed that they do require REASONABLE steps to have been taken to prevent loss.

If anyone is happy with a cheap lock and think that is reasonable, thats fine with me. I prefer to take more reasonable steps to further help the security of my bike, as does User with his Gold standard lock.


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

> As long as we're clear that you don't have to spend a lot of money to get a decent lock. And that, as in my example, £5 can be a reasonable enough step to get you covered.
> 
> Unless an insurance company stipulates a silver or gold standard lock, please explain how they could argue that your lock wasn't reasonable.



I was always more interested in standard of lock. When they make a lock that goes beyond Gold standard costing £1.99 I will buy it. Until then, I will buy and use the heaviest duty Gold standard locks I can get.

Easily explained that anything less than Gold is not reasonable because Gold is the highest recognised standard for Cycle locks. It could be argued that it is therefore reasonable to prevent loss that such standard of lock is used. You have also pointed out that a Gold standard lock does not have to be expensive, so why would anyone use anything less.

I wouldn't, unless my bike cost less than £100.

No, I lie, I would still use a Gold standard lock, even then. The taxi fair home as a result of losing any bike while out could be more than the cost of a Gold standard lock, so in my mind the only reasonable standard of lock is Gold or above.

If we were talking hundreds for locks I could understand some hesitating to buy Gold standard locks, and some of the heaviest can cost £100 or more. However, Gold standard locks can be purchased for far less.


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

> For insurance purposes, a reasonable lock does not have to be gold standard unless stipulated.



and that depends on what reasonable is. To me it is one thing. For you, the standard seems to be a lot lower. However, we are both saying reasonable to describe our view points.

However, I have made my stance very clear. Anything less than Gold I do not see as reasonable for a cycle lock. I have given my reasons for this, and I have given good reason why an Insurance company COULD come to the same conclusion. If you or any other wish to ignore that, fine.  Personally, I prefer that my bike is not stolen so will continue to take all reasonable steps when it comes to locks.


----------



## Twenty Inch (26 Mar 2008)

> For insurance purposes, a reasonable lock does not have to be gold standard unless stipulated.



Yes, but without the Gold standard (with all its flaws, as I outlined above), it may be difficult to prove that it was a "reasonable lock".

Oh God, I'm getting sucked in....


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> Oh God, I'm getting sucked in....



Sorry, but I can't let this go. 

If anyone can afford to buy a cycle, a reasonable lock should be included within the budget, along with a pump, tyre repair kit, spare inners, etc, etc. Reasonable being gold standard. At around £30, it is not an unreasonable cost, or am I just completely missing something here?


----------



## Twenty Inch (26 Mar 2008)

Define "reasonable".... : )


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> Define "reasonable".... : )



A Gold standard lock, and for the reasons given in past posts. I don't think it reasonable to buy anything less when the cost of a Gold standard lock is as cheap as it is.

If there was a higher recognised standard for cycle locks, then I might change my idea of reasonable, based on cost of bike and cost of the lock. However, when a Gold standard lock can be bought for £30, I can see little argument against not using at least that standard.


----------



## Aperitif (26 Mar 2008)

Go to youtube David and watch locks being smashed and ruined...if someone is going to 'do' your bike, they are going to 'do' it.
Insurance companies already know this I'm sure. Do what they say and don't worry...


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

Aperitif said:


> Go to youtube David and watch locks being smashed and ruined...if someone is going to 'do' your bike, they are going to 'do' it.
> Insurance companies already know this I'm sure. Do what they say and don't worry...



Yes, you can break locks given the right tools. That is why I carry 2 different types.

The fact that locks can be broken still doesn't stop them being of use. Follow tat theory, and why bother locking your front door, or bothering closing all the windows.


----------



## davidwalton (26 Mar 2008)

> An insurance company that doesn't stipulate a gold-rated lock doesn't think that this is the only reasonable lock to use. Otherwise it would say so.
> 
> Yes, an insurance company COULD try to insist that only a gold-rated lock is acceptable, but if it didn't stipulate that in the contract then they'd have difficulty enforcing it. Unless you have examples of where this has happened.
> 
> You worry too much.



Wrong, and that is the point I am making. It depends on their definition of what they consider reasonable.

Yes, I do worry about security. Far too many people just don't consider it important, or important enough to spend more than a beer or twos money it seems.

You now tell me:-

I buy a lock for £1.99 and use that to secure my bike.

Is that reasonable?

If you honestly think it is, then I won't bother replying to this thread again. There would be no point, and I think anyone bothering to read as far as this would already of made up their mind what is and isn't reasonable.

If, however, you think I should be spending more; then how much? The only way we have of determining the usefulness of a cycle lock is by their standard, not the price. Would it not be prudent therefore to spend money to get the highest standard of lock, especially when they can be bought so cheaply. eg £30?

An insurance company probably does not need to be any more specific than saying all reasonable steps to prevent loss. If you go to Wiggle and to their locks, it says you should be spending between 10% and 20% of the cost of the bike......

Of course they want you and everyone else to buy in to spending as much as you can. However, I am not saying even spend as much as that. All I am saying is buy a Gold standard lock, not a Silver, Bronze, or a lock not rated. The fact that you buy and use a Gold standard lock is proof that reasonable measures are taken. Anything less, and you are just excusing yourself for not taking enough responsibility in the first place.......

the result being that another bike is stolen, and insurance costs goes up yet again = higher the risk (perceived or real), the higher the premium.

As I said before, either ALL cyclists need to become more security aware, or we need to get rid of the thieves? Unfortunately, Government does not consider bike theft as reason enough to stop those that do steal, so use a Gold standard lock.

*Added:* http://www.directline.com/home/HomePolicy.pdf
See page 19, the only entry regarding preventing loss, rather open. Only other thing I could find is on page 36 which is cycle specific requiring a security device.....again nothing specific. Seems they also don't feel the need to be any more specific.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

> You're not making sense now. Unless an insurance company stipulates a specific type of lock, then you can make your own reasonable decision about what is reasonable. And you'll be ok. You don't have to buy two gold-rated locks be taking reasonable steps. Please give an example of someone's insurance company not paying out because they had a lock which the company decided, without prior stipulation, wasn't good enough. And explain the type of lock that was being used.
> 
> You're worrying too much David. As long as you're taking reasonable steps then you'll be covered. And it appears that, as the majority of insurance which we use, more often than not reasonable steps does not mean having to buy a gold-rated lock.
> 
> ...



I see, now I just don't make any sense. I also now must be in the Insurance business to get info about claims that have not been paid. Yes, but trying to shut me up doesn't make you right, no matter what you think.

I have now given 2 examples of where House insurance companies do NOT go any further than stating you must be reasonable. Reasonable is something they will decide, in every case. It does not matter what you think, and never has to them. Point in question is that SOME may see a £1.99 lock as reasonable, when I wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect an Insurer to either.

You haven't even considered that any non standard lock is UNTESTED. That is the whole point of having standards. Buy an untested lock and you do not know whether it is better or worse than a tested one, until tested.

However, again you lie. I am now thinking it is deliberate as well. I NEVER said you should have 2 Gold locks to show reason, I did say that given the cost of Gold standard locks I see no reason to buy anything less.

Go away and use your cheap untested locks, I won't.

I also see no point in trying to reason further with you as you are just not interested. When you are, let me know. I have given examples, and reason. All I get back is insults, lies about what I write, along with patronizing pats and condescending remarks. Go away and play in the SoapBox. It doesn't matter there, and you can play your game of win the argument at any cost with no damage.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

> _There are no special security requirements. _



Not talking about special, just reasonable, as they state.

What I find strange is that you have a Gold standard lock, yet advise others they don't need one. £30 wasn't too much for you, and you obviously thought it a REASONABLE investment, so why the rubbish?


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

> David
> 
> Please provide examples of when insurance companies have refused to pay out because a lock wasn't 'reasonable' enough.




I answered this already in more than one word before = NO! I am not privy to the inside info that Insurers have, and you know it...Ask me whether I think you are reasonable, or if I were the Insurer whether I would think your stance reasonable

If you want anyone, or any company to pay you, you MUST conform to their standard of what is seen as reasonable, not your low one. They make the decision, and all you can do is protest if you disagree.

This is all stuff you are well aware of though. The only point of this for me is to ensure your bad advise, advise you don't follow yourself, is not taken by others.

It is not unreasonable to expect someone to pay £30 on a lock to secure their bike. For you to say otherwise is not going to help cycle security.....

My reasoning for spending on a Gold standard lock, instead of something of a lower standard (or non standard), is that it could cost me more in taxi fares to get back home than what I suggest is paid on a lock. Hardly an unreasonable investment then.

If you think my reasoning is unreasonable though, then stop using your Gold standard lock and start using one of the £5 Silver standard locks you spoke of instead, or one of the non-standard locks you appear to think are better than those that have been through some testing.

I, on the other hand, will continue with my 2 heavy duty Gold standard locks until something of a higher tested standard comes along. Being the generally accepted thing that around 10% plus of the value of your bike should be spent on security, I would happily spend more to help ensure my bike is secure (within reason).

My way, helps security.

Your way just helps make the thieves job a little easier.

This isn't spending for spendings sake either, and it isn't being sold by false marketing. It is a fact that a Gold standard lock will out last a lower standard lock. It is also a fact that I would always want to lock my bike next to another's who thinks as you do. My bike will always be harder to steal than yours purely because I am willing to spend a reasonable amount on the highest standard of lock that is available for cycles.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

> Read what I've written.
> 
> I've said nothing about low standards.



I have. Yes, you are talking about lower standards...you are talking about £5 Silver locks and even locks which have no testing standard..... = lower than Gold


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

> Hmmm, so you keep going on and on about not trusting insurers, and being careful because they might like to hide their definition of reasonable from you so that they can drag it out when you make a claim and turn it down. But when asked for evidence of this you have none. You don't know anyone who has had a claim rejected because their lock was 'unreasonable'.
> 
> You're worrying unnecessarily David.
> 
> ...



I can state as a fact that Insurance companies will make up their own mind over what THEY believe is reasonable. I can not provide proof of this, so you can say it is a faith thing, but something that is not unreasonable to expect.

There is only one reason for Insurance companies to make unclear statements, and that is to be able to hide behind them as and when they want. Even when you asked M&S, they still came back with unclear advise. Doesn't that tell you anything????

Yes, not saying that the standards set are the best, but they are at least a standard. No standard = unknown. Only use Sold Secure for Cycles, or Thatcham tested if you don't mind carrying a lot more weight.

and STOP saying things like you need 2 Gold locks before covered as if I said it. I NEVER DID. I only recommend using the BEST standard of lock, as I believe it reasonable for any Insurer to expect that amount of care to have been taken.

Yes, I will continue using 2 Gold standard locks. I don't want my bike stolen, and I believe that is a reasonable amount of security for my bike.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

> Rubbish. Evidence please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't trust your advise as so far it comes across to me as security doesn't matter too much, but the cost of security is far too important. Best buy a few beers instead of a better standard of lock.

BTW- Sold Secure testing is my proof that a Gold standard lock will last longer than a lower standard lock.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

> Wrong.



That's a I don't know then. Wrong is not an answer, it is a mark.

I suggest you do some reading on testing. It may not be the best testing, but it is what we have. Gold standard is higher than Silver, which is higher than Bronze, which is higher than a lock with unknown standards.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Mar 2008)

> 3 main cycle insurance companies????? Most household policies will cover bikes away from home. But you've noted that yourself above. I've used several, and none yet have stipulated a type of lock. i've known several people have payouts from stolen bikes who weren't asked what type of lock they were using.
> 
> Unless you're riding a particularly expensive bike which your home insurance company won't cover, you're wasting your money going with a cycle-specific company.




Just be honest.....

I was quoted £380 - £460 per year to insure our pair of Thorn Ravens.... so I spoke to the Home insurers... I specified that they were high quality touring bikes and I wanted them insured (full replacement value)for damage, vandalism theft from home, the same cover while away from home touring , and crash damage 

All they did was make them "Specified Articles" and agreed the above in writing - Cost £38 less than 10% of the other quotes.

I pay in total about £150 per year in bike insurance for a total cover of about £12,000 worth of bikes.......far cheaper and well worth checking out


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

> Nope. I haven't said that at all. You're not listening.
> 
> 
> Are you talking about outlasting in terms of lifespan, or resistance to attack?
> ...



I have listened. I only need spend £5 on a lock is your advise, even though you have a £30 Gold standard lock yourself. Yes, I understand that.

A high standard of lock will stand up to abuse for longer, which is exactly what they are for. In a few years time I fully expect there to be higher standards of lock available, and I will replace my current Gold standard locks then.

You must think I am an idiot. I buy a bike that cost over £2,000 and I only put a £5 lock on it......sure, .......yes,.........which stolen bike ring....

Will you please get real and start thinking. You already think £30 is not too much to spend on security, so why the hell should anyone buy anything of a lower standard than what you have?

A lock that has been through no testing is an unproven product with unknown usefulness. The testing done through Sold Secure may be flawed, I agree. There is no other standard for cycles though at this time.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Just be honest.....
> 
> I was quoted £380 - £460 per year to insure our pair of Thorn Ravens.... so I spoke to the Home insurers... I specified that they were high quality touring bikes and I wanted them insured (full replacement value)for damage, vandalism theft from home, the same cover while away from home touring , and crash damage
> 
> ...



Which company? 

I paid £160 for £2,000 of single bike cover, only because our current House Insurer laughed at the price of the bike, then said no, but would cover it for theft at home as long as I tied it to my bed, locked all windows in the house, and got the guard dogs hungry before falling asleep.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

User,

I know about the issues with many locks being less than they should. A lock is still important, and a lock that has been through some tests I will always take over a lock that has not been tested at all.

We are not even talking about loads of money here. Why are you set on getting people thinking that any amount of money is just a waste? Locks are important. They stop the opportunist, and better locks will put off some that are prepared. Those that aren't put off, I will buy what I consider reasonable locks in an effort to make the thieves job as difficult as I can.

Nobody can stop the thief who has all the tools, but I can slow them down, and I can get them thinking that perhaps your bike would be better to steal.

BTW- I only recognise Sold Secure for Cycle locks, and Thatcham for heavier motor cycle locks.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

User,

The impression you have given me throughout this thread is that spending money on locks is a waste of money.

I do not believe everyone should spend as much as I do on locks either. I would expect those with expensive bikes to be spending similar amounts or more than me. I just fail to understand how £30 lock can be considered too much. Not even the cost of a night out.

Yes, parking in a public well lit area where there is operational manned CCTV, manned by people who care, is the safest place to park. You still need a lock though, and the better the lock, the longer it will take a thief to break it, so the better the chances that the CCTV or even a member of the public will see what is going on.

A lock is important. Common sense with where you park is also important.

At this moment in time, Sold Secure is the recognised standard for cycle locks. You can not get away from that. Apart from Thatcham, there is no other recognised testing body for suitable locks in this Country. Any lock being sold reporting to of been tested by anyone else should fall on deaf ears.......

That may be wrong, but we have the standards we have. Anything else is a total unknown.

Sold Secure testing should be developed with higher standard of locks being made available, and retesting of current locks given tools thieves now have general access to.......

Until then, it is the heavy duty Gold standard for me, times 2. I have also spent a little more than £30, so can hardly say all should follow what I do.


----------



## Aperitif (27 Mar 2008)

Cake stop boys. You'll find the drinks and grub locked in the cabinet on the table over there... I take it you are both carrying multi-tools?


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

Aperitif said:


> I take it you are both carrying multi-tools?



.....and many other things I might need when out, including backups. Like security, I prefer to prepare for the worst in the event that SOD's law says it will happen when it is least needed or prepared for.


----------



## davidwalton (27 Mar 2008)

User,

Yes, there are flaws in the recognised standards, and I chose my locks based on years of Motor Cycling experience with locks, as well as the reputation of the makes I chose.

Yes, they are heavier than most would deem acceptable, but guess what, I care more about security than a few extra Kgs.

I will always ASSUME that a non tested, or an unrecognised tested lock is inferior. Whether it is or isn't is not the issue. The issue is that if a lock is worth anything then it should be tested by the recognised standards. If they also wish to use other testing bodies, great, but the standard here is Sold Secure. There is little excuse for any lock maker not to have their locks tested through Sold Secure.

I have what I consider reasonable security for my bike, and I am happy with that for now. Yes, the locks cost more than £30 each, but as I said; I chose the locks I use based on my experience.

You are the one knocking the argument for buying a £30 Gold standard lock, at every turn, even though you have one yourself. Your argument, as it has come across to me, is that locks are not that important so don't bother spending much on them. Buy something that is cheap and use it rather than something that has been tested.

We are at an end. There is no way in hell that you are going to get me to believe a cheap lock is a better buy than the ones I have. It is also very apparent that you believe the lock is not as important.


----------



## davidwalton (28 Mar 2008)

> When have I knocked the argument for buying the £30 lock that I have? Please show me.
> 
> I don't think my argument has come across to you correctly because you have been coming at this from a place of defence and assumption, and haven't been listening properly to what is being said.
> 
> ...



It seems from my perspective that you are just as unwilling to listen. However, I do note you get annoyed when you think I put things in your mouth. Something you feel justified to do throughout this thread with me though. Could this be another case of double standards

So you think testing is a waste of time, obviously. We have NOTHING else to guage a standard of a lock, so suggest a way for people to buy a GOOD lock without the need to be in the trade.

At present, your knocking of the known standards suggests to me you have some locks you want to sell. Why else would you be so willing to tear down the ONLY standards we have when there is no replacement.

See http://www.soldsecure.com/about_us.htm

"Sold Secure is a non-profit making company dedicated to reducing the risk of crime by the assessment of security products."

So, NONPROFIT organisation. Flawed with some of their testing methods, but not for the sake of money. They are NOT the enemy, and they should be pointed back to the right way instead of thrown aside.

It also seems you are as willing to lie about what I write, as you believe I do about what you do. I think it safe to say that your position is similar to that of most Insurers, eg. unclear Buy a lock, but don't buy gold standard because it MIGHT be a waste of money, but a lock that is not tested isn't......SURE, I get your point, clear as mud.

If a lock is worth anything it will be tested, period. Any lock maker not bothering to go through the tests with their locks, I have to consider do so because they will fail.

That isn't relying on the tests, that is logic which says that the ONLY real testing standard we have in the Country is what ALL cycle locks should be through before they are sold.


----------



## davidwalton (28 Mar 2008)

User,

I am not wrong because you say so.

I am only wrong to you.

I have said all I need say, and read everything you have written. Tell me, what advise do you give to people wanting to buy a GOOD lock for their bike?

At present, you have given a link to one lock that I presume you approve of even though it is Gold Standard, but approving of locks that are not tested is foolhardy at best. You just have no idea of the lock you are then buying, unless in the trade.

Use of the lock is also important, but dos NOT replace the need for a good lock.

I think on the other hand, I have been very clear = Buy the best standard of lock you can. Unfortunately, testing needs to be updated, so be aware of the fact that some locks may not live up to their rating. However, they have been tested to some degree, so is *more likely* to do better than a lock which the manufacturer has not had tested for some reason.

It is known that thick small D-Lock type security is often much harder to break, especially when a bottle jack can not be fitted within it.

Chains can be bought up to 16mm in width....These are expensive, but only the largest of cutters is going to get through, assuming the padlock used is robust. Many cyclists will find these too heavy, but consider them for home or leaving at work.

Cable locks. I would only use these in combination with another lock type.


----------



## Milo (28 Mar 2008)

Bun fight?


----------



## alecstilleyedye (28 Mar 2008)

wait 'till they get started on bicycle clips


----------



## Arch (28 Mar 2008)

Dear God, I only came here to see why 20 Inch wanted to report it, what a waste of electrons!

Really, I've seen more productive posturing by pheasants...

Could I stick my oar in again to remind any civvies who might still be alive and trying to stem the bleeding from their eyes...

An oft quoted piece of advice is to try and spend at least 10% of the value of your bike on a lock. And to get the best you can afford. I'd always recommend a beginner on a budget to factor in a decent lock, along with any specific clothing, helmet, lights, tools etc when working out what they can spend on a bike. And like Mr Paul says, thinking about where and how you lock your bike can make a difference....


----------



## wafflycat (28 Mar 2008)

Arch said:


> Really, I've seen more productive posturing by pheasants...
> 
> Could I stick my oar in again to remind any civvies who might still be alive and trying to stem the bleeding from their eyes...



*coffee over keybaord moment*

You owe me a new keyboard Arch, and a head massage as laughing when I've got a headache hurts


----------



## davidwalton (28 Mar 2008)

wafflycat said:


> *coffee over keybaord moment*
> 
> You owe me a new keyboard Arch, and a head massage as laughing when I've got a headache hurts



The thing is, I totally agree, and apologies for not backing down this time.


----------



## wafflycat (28 Mar 2008)

davidwalton said:


> The thing is, I totally agree, and apologies for not backing down this time.



Ne're mind. We can all get a bit overheated on a subject we care deeply about at times


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (28 Mar 2008)

I only came on cause of 20".

You are arguing about CYCLE LOCKS FFS.!!


----------



## yenrod (28 Mar 2008)

Goaty - see this is the crazy thing about here; a general simple thing is discussed then all hell lets loose bit by bit...


----------



## Twenty Inch (28 Mar 2008)

"...more productive posturing by pheasants..." oh how funny, well done Arch.


----------



## Yorkshireman (29 Mar 2008)

If one uses one of these





theres no need for a lock  .


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Mar 2008)

Yorkshireman said:


> If one uses one of these
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My first bike. [drifts into rose - tinted reverie]


----------



## Dave5N (29 Mar 2008)

The 14" was a better machine.

FWIW and I have told you before: you don't need a lock. You need a toe strap, a window seat, and a confrontational attitude.


----------



## davidwalton (29 Mar 2008)

Dave5N said:


> The 14" was a better machine.
> 
> FWIW and I have told you before: you don't need a lock. You need a toe strap, a window seat, and a confrontational attitude.




or use a company that puts it's money where it's mouth is, ie. provide replacement theft protection....See http://www.onguardlock.com/features/

Products available in the UK through http://www.allterraincycles.co.uk/m...sories/1_Accessories/19_Security/360_OnGuard/

up to $3,500 replacement protection provided (within 3 years of lock purchase).

Would need to check if protection is provided in the UK, but I think this type of protection would solve many problems, putting the responsibility to ensure lock quality back on to the manufacturer.


----------



## Arch (29 Mar 2008)

wafflycat said:


> *coffee over keybaord moment*
> 
> You owe me a new keyboard Arch, and a head massage as laughing when I've got a headache hurts



Sorry... Have a tissue, and an aspirin. You wouldn't want a massage just now, I've got really grubby hands from the allotment...

I think perhaps people had just got a bit stuck in a rut there... God knows, I've done it myself, only I tend to give up fairly easily....


----------



## col (29 Mar 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> My first bike. [drifts into rose - tinted reverie]




This picture reminded me of my first bike,that i used for school,it was a hurcules hunter,anyone remember them?


----------



## Aperitif (29 Mar 2008)

Arch said:


> Sorry... Have a tissue, and an aspirin. You wouldn't want a massage just now, I've got really grubby hands from the allotment...
> 
> *I think perhaps people had just got a bit stuck in a rut there...* God knows, I've done it myself, only I tend to give up fairly easily....



I'm beginning to think that ruts are far more secure than locks Arch  Also, make sure you attach your gold standard rut to something solid - like an immovable post from David or, fixed differently but equally immovable, one from Mr Paul.
You know it makes sense, non?


----------



## Arch (1 Apr 2008)

> I'm getting flashbacks to Mrs Closick, my junior school authoritarian mistress.
> 
> Do continue.



You had an Authoritarian Mistress? Gosh, we had a Games Mistress, but...

Anyway, don't make me have to fetch my riding crop....


----------



## GrahamG (1 Apr 2008)

Fook me, you're still at it?! Thank god I'm not stuck in lock in with you arguing the toss on something.


----------



## Alcdrew (1 Apr 2008)

WOW, this has to win the longest lock related thread in cycle forum history...

I was going to give my two cents worth of lock advice but don't see the need now.


----------



## Tynan (2 Apr 2008)

Aperitif said:


> I'm beginning to think that ruts are far more secure than locks Arch  Also, make sure you attach your gold standard rut to something solid - like an immovable post from David or, fixed differently but equally immovable, one from Mr Paul.
> You know it makes sense, non?


----------



## Ciderpower (20 May 2008)

*Grrr*

Jesus, Mary and holy St Joseph.
I found this site when searching for help on bike security and ended up nearly smashing my laptop. I'm normally very laid back but someone managed to wind me up, right to the point I was considering hunting them down and beating them to a pulp with their £30 lock or maybe a frozen pheasant.
Some people talk for the sake of talking, loving the sound of their own voice - I think we've stumbled upon a literary equivalent.


----------



## punkypossum (20 May 2008)

Hehe, welcome to the world of CycleChat, Ciderpower!!!


----------



## Briggo (20 May 2008)

So, what lock should you use?


----------



## Ciderpower (21 May 2008)

I thought maybe I'd have word with a sparky at work to see if he could knock me up a device to electrocute any prospective bike thief - probably not legal, but then is stealing bikes legal? 

Burn em, burn em I say!


----------



## Riverman (26 Mar 2010)

If anything needs a lock it's this thread.


----------



## pbar (26 Mar 2010)

Wow, can't believe that this thread is still active after all this time.
Didn't think this would happen when I started it off with one simple question!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (26 Mar 2010)

pbar said:


> Wow, can't believe that this thread is still active after all this time.



Amazing isn't it - you don't even ride a bike any more!!


----------



## pbar (27 Mar 2010)

I ride a bike, but I don't use a lock that much!


----------



## beachcaster (27 Mar 2010)

*lock it*

I locked my bike to lamp post at the beginning of this thread
but after so much time the bike has rusted away !!

barry


----------



## pbar (27 Mar 2010)

Don't worry about it.
By the time this thread is done we'll be using hover boards instead of bikes.


----------



## CopperBrompton (28 Mar 2010)

Twenty Inch said:


> CTC mag recently did an analysis of locks and theft. "Gold" "silver" and so on locks are rated against attack with hacksaw, screwdriver, putty knife, nail file, Swiss Army knife tweezers and eyebrow curlers. Well, not quite, but they are NOT tested against the tools that a thief uses. Why not? Because thieves use heavy duty bolt croppers and stubby hydraulic jacks which can break through anything.


The CTC is talking bollox. The Sold Secure tools list is:

* Section A – Light Manual *



 A01 to A03 Screwdriver 0.10m to 0.20 m with slotted tip as a lever
 A04 0.5kg ball peign hammer
 A05 Miniature hand hacksaw frame to BS 7398:1991, Type A with integral tension
 A06 Wrecking Bar - 300mm
 A07 Steel tube 0.3m long with 32mm diameter
 A08 Pair of pliers,
 A09 Allen Key Set - 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0mm
 A10 to A14 – A10 Craft Knife, A11 Tweezers, A12 Hooks, A13 String, A14 Wire
 A15 Adhesive Tape
 A16 Plastic Coupon (Credit Card),
 A17 Wedges,
 A18 Multiple Slip Joint Pliers (250mm)
* Section B – Medium Manual *



 B01 Socket set approximately 30 piece 3/8 inch drive to BS 1224:1970.
 B02 Range of Combination Spanners 6mm - 30mm to BS 1224:1970
 B03 20 piece Screwdriver Set, including Slotted, Phillips & Posi-drive tips
 B04 Wood Chisels 6, 12, 18 & 25mm
 B05 0.3m plumber’s Stillsons grip wrench to BS 3594:Pt 1
 B06 0.6m length of scaffolding pole
 B07 Hand hacksaw frame to BS 7398:1991 and HSS hacksaw blade
 B08 Cold & Bolster Chisel Set ranging from approx.6mm - 50mm & steel wedges.
 B09 Parallel Punch Set (100mm) 3.2, 4.0, 4.8, 5.5, 6.4mm
 B10 Side Cutters (heavy duty), B11 Bolt Croppers 0.460m
 B12 Wrecking Bar - 450mm,
 B13 Pry Bar 400mm
 B14 Scissor Jack with  1.5 tonnes capacity
 B15 Slide Hammer 1kg 0.3m,
 B16 7.2V Cordless Drill 10mm chuck,
 B17 Drill Bits HSS (1mm – 13mm)
 B18 Vice Grip Set (125mm & 250mm, parallel jaws)
*Section C – Heavy Manual/ Light Electrical *



 C01 Impactor Screwdrivers variety of slotted tip sizes 6,8,10,12mm
 C02 0.45m plumber's Stillsons grip wrench to BS 3594:Pt 1
 C03 B05 extended with 0.6m scaffold bar
 C04 0.6m length of scaffolding poles which fits together to item B06
 C05 1.1kg club hammer to BS 876:1981
 C06 Hand hacksaw frame to BS 7398:1991 and TCT hacksaw blade
 C07 Freezing agent - can size 0.5 Litres.
 C08 Bolt Croppers 0.610m
 C09 Bolt Croppers 1.070m
 C10 Wrecking Bar 600mm
 C11 Slide Hammer 2kg 0.45m
 C12 Grundman/Kaba "Knackerer"
 C13 Shims (set of automotive feeler gauges 0.001-2mm)
 C14 Picking tools (including a modified key blank)
 C15 12V Cordless Drill 13 mm chuck, 1500rpm max.
 C16 Tank Cutter/ Core Cutter Bit 100mm HSS
 C17 Hydraulic Bottle Jack (1.5 Tonnes) to BS AU 172b:1990
 C18 Ball Joint Splitter/Separator Kit (to light commercial)
 C19 Coil Spring Compressor (to 270mm jaw opening)
 C20 Self Contained Blow Torch Propane/Butane (1650ºC)
To get Gold, it must survive Section C tools for five minutes.


----------



## CopperBrompton (28 Mar 2010)

> This is a sold-secure gold-rated lock-
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFaLmVqQibo



Are you 100% sure about that? Last time I checked, there was NO cable-lock with a Sold Secure Gold rating and I'd be amazed if that has changed precisely because cables, however thick, are easily cropped.


----------

