# Kryptonite Theft Reimbursement For $2000 Real?



## zapshe (30 Jul 2018)

Hi guys, so I was hearing about Kryptonite's Locks coming with anti-theft protection - which means they'll reimburse me for a stolen bike. The forgetaboutit lock has a 10/10 security rating which (according to their graph) I'll be covered up to $2000 on any stolen bike. The protection is free for one year, and $25 for protection till 5 years. I do have to send certain information to be included in the program, but it shouldn't be a problem. Usually people wont be reimbursed because they didn't do any of this stuff within "30 days of lock purchase" (written in small text). 

Here's the actual websites with information:
https://www.kryptonitelock.com/en/customer-service/register-for-anti-theft.html
https://www.kryptonitelock.com/cont.../Kryptonite's_Anti-Theft_Protection_Offer.pdf
https://www.kryptonitelock.com/en/customer-service/faqs.html?id=112

I assure you they make it as hard as possible to get money from them. However, the conditions seem simple enough that even with their pestering and such I should be able to provide them with what they need and they should have no excuse to not reimburse me.

One of the things you need to do is send in the bike lock. However, this is sometimes stolen too. I was thinking of buying 2 locks and registering them. I'd keep one at home so if the other lock is picked/cut but also stolen, I can simply use an angle grinder to cut up the second lock to send in as evidence. If not stolen, then I got a backup lock at home I suppose. I could keep one unregistered to use (and save $25) but if it breaks, whether stolen or not stolen, I'd be forced to break the other one to send in which would be a $100 lock!

Let me know what you guys think. Thanks !


----------



## Drago (30 Jul 2018)

I think it was £500 in the UK? Yes, it's for real. Keep your receipt.


----------



## classic33 (30 Jul 2018)

Used to have a number on the keys. You provide them with this in the event of failure of one of their locks.

Also if you needed a spare key.


----------



## NorthernDave (30 Jul 2018)

Just read the terms and conditions very carefully - I had a similar offer on a lock (don't think it was a Kryptonite), but the conditions were very restrictive and if I remember correctly required you to have the bike insured and provide all the insurance details to the lock company in the event of a claim.
I never had to use the offer, but I suspect they might have tried to offset their loss against the insurance policy in the event of a claim.


----------



## zapshe (30 Jul 2018)

Thanks guys.



Drago said:


> I think it was £500 in the UK? Yes, it's for real. Keep your receipt.



With kryptonite, the coverage is based on the security rating of the lock. With the forgetaboutit lock (10/10 security rating) it covers up to $2000



NorthernDave said:


> required you to have the bike insured



Kryptonite doesn't do that for what I've seen. They say to provide insurance details "IF" you have insurance.


Thanks again guys, hopefully nothing will get stolen, but good to know that I have that option!


----------



## vickster (30 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Thanks guys.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Contact the company and ask for the Ts& Cs in writing. Don’t you have to have the psrts of the broken lock as proof or something


----------



## zapshe (30 Jul 2018)

vickster said:


> Contact the company and ask for the Ts& Cs in writing. Don’t you have to have the psrts of the broken lock as proof or something



Yes, I covered needing the defeated lock in the original post.


----------



## vickster (30 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Yes, I covered needing the defeated lock in the original post.


TL DR

But looks like you’d consider committing fraud to claim...


----------



## classic33 (30 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Yes, I covered needing the defeated lock in the original post.


The key supplied wouldn't match the lock though.


----------



## zapshe (30 Jul 2018)

vickster said:


> TL DR
> 
> But looks like you’d consider committing fraud to claim...



You bet I considered it.


----------



## zapshe (30 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> The key supplied wouldn't match the lock though.



I don't think you understood what I was going to do. I was going to buy 2 locks, and register both of them with the bike. If my bike was stolen and lock taken as well (which happens), I'll have no lock to send back to them. With the OTHER registered lock, I'd break it then send it. The key I'd give them would be for the other lock.


----------



## Tin Pot (30 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Hi guys, so I was hearing about Kryptonite's Locks coming with anti-theft protection - which means they'll reimburse me for a stolen bike. The forgetaboutit lock has a 10/10 security rating which (according to their graph) I'll be covered up to $2000 on any stolen bike. The protection is free for one year, and $25 for protection till 5 years. I do have to send certain information to be included in the program, but it shouldn't be a problem. Usually people wont be reimbursed because they didn't do any of this stuff within "30 days of lock purchase" (written in small text).
> 
> Here's the actual websites with information:
> https://www.kryptonitelock.com/en/customer-service/register-for-anti-theft.html
> ...



I think ‘Fraud’.


----------



## zapshe (30 Jul 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> I think ‘Fraud’.



Thanks, wouldn't have figured it out myself. Would you rather commit a little fraud to get around the fact that they try to make life hard on you by asking for the lock that may have been stolen or lose $1000+? 

^If you choose the second option, you're a better man than I.


----------



## classic33 (30 Jul 2018)

The amount they'd pay out if their lock is defeated can be $4,500, depending on your bikes value.

Chances of a payout seem to be slim. The lock mechanism apppears to require defeating, not the lock itself.


----------



## zapshe (30 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> The amount they'd pay out if their lock is defeated can be $4,500, depending on your bikes value.
> 
> Chances of a payout seem to be slim. The lock mechanism apppears to require defeating, not the lock itself.



I'm going to call them to confirm all this first. Thanks for info, gives me another thing to ask about.

EDIT: They say this on their site "If your bicycle or powersport vehicle is stolen because of the malicious or unintended opening or breaking of the Kryptonite lock by force, we will pay you"

So it should cover breakage


----------



## classic33 (30 Jul 2018)

L


zapshe said:


> Thanks, wouldn't have figured it out myself. Would you rather commit a little fraud to get around the fact that they try to make life hard on you by asking for the lock that may have been stolen or lose $1000+?
> 
> ^If you choose the second option, you're a better man than I.


I'd be honest with them. If they realise their bike locks can be beaten, they may make a better lock. One that doesn't require paying for to get cover that has had very little success in getting paid out since they introduced it.

An all metal locking mechanism is worth looking for.

http://thebestbikelock.com/best-bike-lock/abus-vs-kryptonite-vs-onguard/


----------



## zapshe (30 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> L
> I'd be honest with them. If they realise their bike locks can be beaten, they may make a better lock. One that doesn't require paying for to get cover that has had very little success in getting paid out since they introduced it.



The way I see it, they already know it can be beaten. There was an amazon review for the forgetaboutit (Which is their flagship 10/10 security rating top lock) where the lock was destroyed with an angle grinder. The guy calls them and they wouldn't reimburse since he didn't register the lock and bike with them.

Moreover, The Lockpicking Lawyer (on Youtube) lock picked their lock in a minute or two. It's not a normal lock, but a pro could be carrying the needed tools for this lock and could pick it. I'm sure they know all this, they simply know they can't defend against all attacks.

EDIT: They also do all this complicated stuff to keep from reimbursing you. No company makes money through easy reimbursements. It's why attorneys have commercials on insurance companies!


----------



## classic33 (30 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> The way I see it, they already know it can be beaten. There was an amazon review for the forgetaboutit (Which is their flagship 10/10 security rating top lock) where the lock was destroyed with an angle grinder. The guy calls them and they wouldn't reimburse since he didn't register the lock and bike with them.
> 
> Moreover, The Lockpicking Lawyer (on Youtube) lock picked their lock in a minute or two. It's not a normal lock, but a pro could be carrying the needed tools for this lock and could pick it. I'm sure they know all this, they simply know they can't defend against all attacks.
> 
> EDIT: They also do all this complicated stuff to keep from reimbursing you. No company makes money through easy reimbursements. It's why attorneys have commercials on insurance companies!


I'd place more trust in the insurance company paying out, having met their requirements, than a lock company.

There's a case going through the system at present, over a lock that couldn't be beat. Done in less than 17 seconds.


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jul 2018)

So, who pays you when the frustrated thief/vandal smashes up your expensive bike instead of stealing it? 

I have seen lots of securely locked wrecked bikes ... Buy a cheap bike and replace it if you have to! (The money saved on the second lock could buy you an extra bike ...)


----------



## zapshe (31 Jul 2018)

ColinJ said:


> So, who pays you when the frustrated thief/vandal smashes up your expensive bike instead of stealing it?



Who smashes a car/motorcycle if they can't steal it? Cars have security that is practically unbeatable, yet I don't see cars being smashed. I've never seen a bike destroyed because a thief was frustrated they couldn't steal it. Moreover, they look at the lock before stealing to see if they are equipped. People may not stop someone stealing the bike, but perhaps on a campus someone would question why someone was destroying a bike.



classic33 said:


> I'd place more trust in the insurance company paying out, having met their requirements, than a lock company.



Same as well, but I don't exactly have cash flow to make monthly payments.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Who smashes a car/motorcycle if they can't steal it? Cars have security that is practically unbeatable, yet I don't see cars being smashed. I've never seen a bike destroyed because a thief was frustrated they couldn't steal it. Moreover, they look at the lock before stealing to see if they are equipped. People may not stop someone stealing the bike, but perhaps on a campus someone would question why someone was destroying a bike.


Well... 



ColinJ said:


> I went to watch a circuit race in Manchester City Centre once. I walked down the length of Deansgate and there was a nice bike locked to nearly every lampost, traffic sign, and bus stop. I walked the circuit and by the time I got back somebody had trashed every bike wheel. There was a crowd of thousands, but that didn't stop the idiots doing it!
> 
> I walked past bike stands at Sheffield university. The bikes that hadn't been stolen (broken locks lying about where bikes had presumably once been secured) or had bits stripped off them had been kicked and stamped on.


As for cars not getting smashed... I have seen scores of them smashed and/or burned up on the moors round here. My sister had her car nicked by local teenagers who drove around in it until they got bored and then they torched it!


----------



## zapshe (31 Jul 2018)

ColinJ said:


> Well...
> 
> 
> As for cars not getting smashed... I have seen scores of them smashed and/or burned up on the moors round here. My sister had her car nicked by local teenagers who drove around in it until they got bored and then they torched it!



Well, after reading this I suppose I probably don't even need a bike lock anymore. Seems all the bad things happen wherever everybody else is! However, the fact that you had to quote someone else's experience of a destroyed bike means it's not common. Thanks for the heads up though.


----------



## classic33 (31 Jul 2018)

They'd to remove the front end of the trike because they couldn't cut the lock & chain combination, when they took mine.

It can happen to you. It's just "always someone else it happens to". Slight contradiction but "It'll never happen to me" gets thrown about too easily.

Check youtube for "Gone in 17 seconds". The owner thought his was secure.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Who smashes a car/motorcycle if they can't steal it? Cars have security that is practically unbeatable, yet I don't see cars being smashed. I've never seen a bike destroyed because a thief was frustrated they couldn't steal it..



Plenty of malicious damage occurs. Cars and motorbikes get torched - it's the easiest way of destroying them and gets rid of any forensic evidence a would-be thief has left behind.
Push bikes regularly get smashed up, either just by mindless vandals or because attempted theft has failed. A look around any decent sized London bike rack will reveal bikes where the wheels have been kicked in and the rims bent, tyres slashed, saddles slashed or stolen, gear mechanisms kicked in. Easy-to-remove bits like pedals, saddles, bars, unsecured wheels - all go missing every day. Many an owner has returned to find their expensive bike reduced to a bare frame and back wheel with everything else gone. You're naïve if you think this doesn't happen to others or won't happen to you if you ride an expensive bike to uni. Get a hack bike for high risk locations and leave the expensive bike at home. As already said, a good lock or bike insurance, is more money than a cheap knockabout bike so it's a no-brainer.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Thanks, wouldn't have figured it out myself. Would you rather commit a little fraud to get around the fact that they try to make life hard on you by asking for the lock that may have been stolen or lose $1000+?
> 
> ^If you choose the second option, you're a better man than I.



Your proposal is to steal money if your bike is stolen. Is that really who you are, and who your family think you are?

Perhaps you think that their lock guarantee is actually insurance? It’s not. It is only a guarantee of strength of the lock - not insurance against any theft.


----------



## zapshe (31 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> They'd to remove the front end of the trike because they couldn't cut the lock & chain combination, when they took mine.
> 
> It can happen to you. It's just "always someone else it happens to". Slight contradiction but "It'll never happen to me" gets thrown about too easily.
> 
> Check youtube for "Gone in 17 seconds". The owner thought his was secure.



I was only being being sarcastic and I've seen that video. This is why I've been posting and gathering information. I want to be prepared for if/when it happens.


SkipdiverJohn said:


> Plenty of malicious damage occurs. Cars and motorbikes get torched - it's the easiest way of destroying them and gets rid of any forensic evidence a would-be thief has left behind.
> Push bikes regularly get smashed up, either just by mindless vandals or because attempted theft has failed. A look around any decent sized London bike rack will reveal bikes where the wheels have been kicked in and the rims bent, tyres slashed, saddles slashed or stolen, gear mechanisms kicked in. Easy-to-remove bits like pedals, saddles, bars, unsecured wheels - all go missing every day. Many an owner has returned to find their expensive bike reduced to a bare frame and back wheel with everything else gone. You're naïve if you think this doesn't happen to others or won't happen to you if you ride an expensive bike to uni. Get a hack bike for high risk locations and leave the expensive bike at home. As already said, a good lock or bike insurance, is more money than a cheap knockabout bike so it's a no-brainer.



That sounds like a rare event at a university which is where I'll be locking up my bike 99% of the time.



Tin Pot said:


> Your proposal is to steal money if your bike is stolen. Is that really who you are, and who your family think you are?
> 
> Perhaps you think that their lock guarantee is actually insurance? It’s not. It is only a guarantee of strength of the lock - not insurance against any theft.



Let me put it this way. The whole point of this is not to steal money. They say they will reimburse if their lock fails - that is their guarantee of their lock. If it does fail, they want proof - the lock. If the lock is stolen, I can't prove to them their lock failed. Think of it as a lie to reveal the truth. I'm NOT saying if the bike was stolen through another method - such as someone stealing the whole bike rack - that I would go through with this plan, since their lock did not indeed fail in that scenario. And let me make this clear as well, my morals are not your morals.


----------



## User16625 (31 Jul 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> Your proposal is to steal money if your bike is stolen. Is that really who you are, and who your family think you are?
> 
> Perhaps you think that their lock guarantee is actually insurance? It’s not. It is only a guarantee of strength of the lock - not insurance against any theft.



His proposal is to get back at a company using "small print" to avoid fulfilling a promise they made. In this hypothetical case, paying out for a lock that got bust. The only reasonable stuff would be to register what ever bikes you intend to lock up using the lock. What's certainly not reasonable is requiring the broken lock as proof. As has been mentioned, thieves often take the locks with them, presumably not to leave any evidence.

With companies using unreasonable T&Cs and small print to void deals, I have absolutely nothing against people doing what you call fraud if it means they ultimately get what the company said they would give in an ad, online or wherever.


----------



## Bazzer (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> ......................... Think of it as a lie to reveal the truth. ......



You cannot produce the lock to satisfy the terms and conditions attached to the lock, so produce another one instead; not by way of example, but solely to meet the terms and conditions of the missing lock. Therefore isn't it fraud?



RideLikeTheStig said:


> His proposal is to get back at a company using "small print" to avoid fulfilling a promise they made. In this hypothetical case, paying out for a lock that got bust. The only reasonable stuff would be to register what ever bikes you intend to lock up using the lock. What's certainly not reasonable is requiring the broken lock as proof. As has been mentioned, thieves often take the locks with them, presumably not to leave any evidence.
> 
> With companies using unreasonable T&Cs and small print to void deals, I have absolutely nothing against people doing what you call fraud if it means they ultimately get what the company said they would give in an ad, online or wherever.



I don't doubt that the lock company are well aware of that locks will generally be taken with the bike and disposed of away from the scene of the crime, which is probably why they make the offer. Plus of course it would be attractive to a potential buyer. But if you buy the lock in the full knowledge of the terms and conditions, surely you are accepting those conditions? If you don't like the terms and conditions, surely you have two choices: 1) Don't buy the lock, or 2) If the bike is stolen along with the lock, challenge the terms and conditions.


----------



## rivers (31 Jul 2018)

Or you can just insure the bike so if it does get stolen, you know you are covered and you don't have to worry about Kryptonite trying to weasel out of it. Just a thought


----------



## smutchin (31 Jul 2018)

If I was going to commit fraud, I wouldn't write about it on a public internet forum.


----------



## zapshe (31 Jul 2018)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> His proposal is to get back at a company using "small print" to avoid fulfilling a promise they made. In this hypothetical case, paying out for a lock that got bust. The only reasonable stuff would be to register what ever bikes you intend to lock up using the lock. What's certainly not reasonable is requiring the broken lock as proof. As has been mentioned, thieves often take the locks with them, presumably not to leave any evidence.
> 
> With companies using unreasonable T&Cs and small print to void deals, I have absolutely nothing against people doing what you call fraud if it means they ultimately get what the company said they would give in an ad, online or wherever.



Thanks for being someone of reason and logic.



Bazzer said:


> You cannot produce the lock to satisfy the terms and conditions attached to the lock, so produce another one instead; not by way of example, but solely to meet the terms and conditions of the missing lock. Therefore isn't it fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that the lock company are well aware of that locks will generally be taken with the bike and disposed of away from the scene of the crime, which is probably why they make the offer. Plus of course it would be attractive to a potential buyer. But if you buy the lock in the full knowledge of the terms and conditions, surely you are accepting those conditions? If you don't like the terms and conditions, surely you have two choices: 1) Don't buy the lock, or 2) If the bike is stolen along with the lock, challenge the terms and conditions.



I never said it wasn't fraud, I said I didn't care. To repeat myself, your morals are not mine. Perhaps abiding by rules made for the purpose of self-interest are fine with you, and that's alright, that's you. I, on the other hand, don't do that if I don't have to.



rivers said:


> Or you can just insure the bike so if it does get stolen, you know you are covered and you don't have to worry about Kryptonite trying to weasel out of it. Just a thought



Not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic there at the end, but it was a thought already mentioned.



smutchin said:


> If I was going to commit fraud, I wouldn't write about it on a public internet forum.



Certainly. Now they know my name is zapshe and everything else about me, what was I thinking?


My concerns have been addressed, thanks everyone for posting, it's very appreciated!


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> And let me make this clear as well, my morals are not your morals.


My morals are societies morals - legal.

Your morality is criminal.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Jul 2018)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> His proposal is to get back at a company using "small print" to avoid fulfilling a promise they made. In this hypothetical case, paying out for a lock that got bust. The only reasonable stuff would be to register what ever bikes you intend to lock up using the lock. What's certainly not reasonable is requiring the broken lock as proof. As has been mentioned, thieves often take the locks with them, presumably not to leave any evidence.
> 
> With companies using unreasonable T&Cs and small print to void deals, I have absolutely nothing against people doing what you call fraud if it means they ultimately get what the company said they would give in an ad, online or wherever.



I can see where you might think this is reasonable, but this is the scenario:

A bike is locked with a Kryptonite lock.

The bike is stolen.

There is no evidence that the lock failed.

We create evidence so that Kryptonite pay out.

—hopefully that’s self explanatory.

When companies use T&Cs that are in your opinion unreasonable. DONT USE THEM. It’s not a green light to commit fraud.


----------



## Profpointy (31 Jul 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> I can see where you might think this is reasonable, but this is the scenario:
> 
> A bike is locked with a Kryptonite lock.
> 
> ...



Quite ! If the company's adverising indicates a shonky or grudging guarantee, rather than selling the lock ots merits, I'd be questioning the quality of the product itself.

By way of contrast, Pelikan make heavy duty plastic cases and torches with a hugely generous guarantee with the only get out being "bear attack or use by small children" I broke a small torch after many years of quite obviously extremely rough treatment, stated that it hadn't been used by bears or small children and they sent me a new one. Similarly we'd dropped on of their cases some 30 foot in a cave smashing it. Also replaced no bother despite us having cut a 2" square hold in the side to fit an electrical socket. Now that's a guarantee ! Of course, they get lots of free publicity for every story like this, and they will always be my first choice for this sort of product, despite bing pricey. Also despite being expensive items, I imagine the cost to them is the up front cost setting up the molds rather.than the individial cost of making one item. But it does show that fair dealing, even to the point of being ridiculously generous, can pay off


----------



## vickster (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Thanks for being someone of reason and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As an avid reviewer of Ts & Cs, presumably you are fully aware of those you agreed to when you signed up to the site, notably...

We reserve the right to reveal information we know about you in the event of any legal action arising from any content posted by you


----------



## smutchin (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Certainly. Now they know my name is zapshe and everything else about me, what was I thinking?



What did you expect us to say? Fraud is a great idea and we all wholly endorse it?

You asked us to let you know what we think.


----------



## jefmcg (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> I never said it wasn't fraud, I said I didn't care.


Do you also not care about the crime you need to commit? Your claim needs to include a copy of the police report, so you will need to lie to the police when making that report. That is wasting the police's time or perverting the course of justice.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's also not the brightest form of fraud. Spend an extra £50-£70 on a second lock that you don't need, on the off chance that someone steals your bike and takes the broken lock with them, so you can then fake damage to the spare lock. Really? Much simpler to just buy one lock and spend the rest of the money insuring your bike against theft.
> 
> I don't think anyone should be under the impression that any lock is unbreakable. Of course they can be picked by specialists. Of course an angle grinder can cut them. You'd have to be very naive to think otherwise. I've not checked but I very much doubt that Kryptonite or any other manufacturer claim that their lock is unbreakable.



 Exactly.

If I bought two locks (which I have) I wouldn’t be leaving one at home for fraud, I’d be using two locks (different manufacturers) to secure my bike!


----------



## PaulSB (31 Jul 2018)

This all seems very complicated. My valuable bikes are locked to the wall in the garage. If they get stolen my insurance company’s T&Cs have been complied with. 

I never let my valuable bikes out of my sight when they are not in the garage. 

I’ve got a £75 hybrid with a cafe lock for other situations.

Get a decent insurance company and avoid a criminal record for fraud.


----------



## zapshe (31 Jul 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> My morals are societies morals - legal.
> 
> Your morality is criminal.



Doesn't change my statement



vickster said:


> As an avid reviewer of Ts & Cs, presumably you are fully aware of those you agreed to when you signed up to the site, notably...
> 
> We reserve the right to reveal information we know about you in the event of any legal action arising from any content posted by you



You have no information. I use a VPN and other forms of security online. Moreover, to release my information legally, you'll need to be asked by law enforcement. I highly doubt they will go to a cyclechat to look for information on me. So please, feel free to stick to the terms and conditions.



smutchin said:


> What did you expect us to say? Fraud is a great idea and we all wholly endorse it?
> 
> You asked us to let you know what we think. Well, what I think is that you're either naive or stupid. Or both.



No, I was talking about the actual Kryptonite guarantee. So I was expecting you to tell me (perhaps with some insight?) about how trustworthy it was.



jefmcg said:


> Do you also not care about the crime you need to commit? Your claim needs to include a copy of the police report, so you will need to lie to the police when making that report. That is wasting the police's time or perverting the course of justice.



Never thought of that before . Don't know what I was thinking, I must be a lunatic.


Tin Pot said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If I bought two locks (which I have) I wouldn’t be leaving one at home for fraud, I’d be using two locks (different manufacturers) to secure my bike!



What an amazing idea you have there. Certainly not one I've ever considered or posted about doing ! I'll go do that RIGHT NOW !


I can't even guys. I think I'm done replying to this thread. I'm losing brain cells by the second.


----------



## vickster (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Doesn't change my statement
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's ok, it'll likely disappear for many by use of the ignore function


----------



## zapshe (31 Jul 2018)

vickster said:


> That's ok, it'll likely disappear for many by use of the ignore function



Does that mean I don't have to deal with idiotic comments anymore? Then thanks for the heads up ! Something to look forward to.


----------



## vickster (31 Jul 2018)

zapshe said:


> Does that mean I don't have to deal with idiotic comments anymore? Then thanks for the heads up ! Something to look forward to.


Or anything useful you may have received in answer to any sensible question you may be able to dream up


----------



## zapshe (31 Jul 2018)

vickster said:


> Or anything useful you may have received in answer to any sensible question you may be able to dream up



How long will you keep posting your sarcastic comments that are intended to try and get at me when I've done nothing to you?


----------



## classic33 (31 Jul 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's also not the brightest form of fraud. Spend an extra £50-£70 on a second lock that you don't need, on the off chance that someone steals your bike and* takes the broken lock with them, so you can then fake damage to the spare lock. *Really? Much simpler to just buy one lock and spend the rest of the money insuring your bike against theft.
> 
> I don't think anyone should be under the impression that any lock is unbreakable. Of course they can be picked by specialists. Of course an angle grinder can cut them. You'd have to be very naive to think otherwise. I've not checked but I very much doubt that Kryptonite or any other manufacturer claim that their lock is unbreakable.


It's the part that actually locks that needs to be "beaten", in order to claim. And since the keys are coded, the first going along with the bike, would have a seperate number. 

The lock number having been provided by the person when they took the ""cover" out. Two identical locks wouldn't work as they'd have two seperate numbers. Unless you paid for the cover on each lock.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Jul 2018)

PaulSB said:


> I never let my valuable bikes out of my sight when they are not in the garage.
> 
> I’ve got a £75 hybrid with a cafe lock for other situations..



Pretty much what I do, except in my case the £75 hybrids ARE my valuable bikes and my real hack ones were essentially free, or virtually nil cost.


----------



## Levo-Lon (31 Jul 2018)

Thieves usually take the lock to learn the best way to defeat them.
The 2 lock idea wont work in a claim.
As they know you have 2 which would need separate registration.
So just get good insurance.

Hope that helps.
You should leave this thread now as your just going to get the ..well you know already


----------

