Best Type Of Bike Lock?

[davidwalton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Define "reasonable".... : )

 

[davidwalton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

You haven't even considered the fact that you can get more secure locks than those that are gold-rated. Don't fall for the marketing side of the ratings.

And you're arguing round in circles. As with the last discussion we had on another subject, we don't all have to do what you do to be covered. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, so you can stop fretting. It just means, again, that there are other options.

Note that I have made no comment on £1.99 locks. I don't need to.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Plenty of people have locks which aren't gold or silver rated, but will be sufficient for a claim to be paid out.

Some gold- and silver- rated locks can be broken pretty easily if you know what you're doing. Take the advice from earlier and have a dig around the web and you'll see. A beefy padlock and motorbike chain may be far more resilient but not rated.


But you keep going on about your way. Which isn't necessarily necessary

You don't need two gold-rated locks to ensure that your insurance will cover you.

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.