Best Type Of Bike Lock?

[davidwalton]

Rubbish. Evidence please.



The chances of my bike being stolen are very remote David. I've taken sufficient steps to ensure this. And I don't need 2 gold-rated locks to ensure this.

My advice to you would be to use M&S for cover when you next can. It'll save you money.

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]

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]

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]

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?

Either way, you're too black and white.

And you're still getting confused. Gold standard doesn't mean that it is necessarily better than locks that haven't been through the Sold Secure tests. So it is no proof that it will last longer than a non-gold-rated lock.

you'ver never seen the videos have you?

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

You can't see that you can get a comparable lock as a gold-rated SS lock that isn't rated. Or that you have paid a premium for your locks for a stamp on them that in reality is only worth something to the manufacturer who has got that premium out of you and to you if your insurance company insists on gold-rating. Surely you can see that there's something wrong when a cable lock (one of the easiest to get through) is in the same rating as a small D-lock (one of the most secure)? Both of these types are in the gold-rated list. One is far better than the other.

This is gold rated-
http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/...1_productId_231103_langId_-1_categoryId_31389
Used properly, it's very difficult to overcome.

This is also gold rated-
http://www.ukbikesdepot.com/products.php?plid=m2b27s280p878&rs=gb
17 seconds to break.

But you're saying that a gold-rating is sufficient for your satisfaction.

So unless/until you can get past that then yes, we are at an end.

People need to know which type of lock are good in which circumstances. They need to know how to lock a bike up properly. Relying on a part-security-part-marketing rating as a sign of resilience is dangerous.

People also need to know what the insurance options are, and that you can very often be wasting money going to cycle-specific insurers.

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]

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]

Bun fight?

 

[alecstilleyedye]

wait 'till they get started on bicycle clips

 

[Arch]

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....