What Lock?

[Davidc]

I'm losing the will to live with lock ratings!!! The Sold Secure website is driving me batty.
Anyone had a claim rejected because of the rating of the lock having changed between your buying the policy/lock and the stealing of the bike?

Fortunately not had a claim in recent years. Just in case I keep in my bikes file the receipt for my lock and the packaging showing it as sold secure gold. At least the insurers can't argue that it complied when I bought it!

 

[MJN]

From reading this forum it is apparent that particular Sold Secure ratings seem to be a mandated requirement of many insurance policies, however my insurer (More Than) makes no other requirement than for the bike to be locked to an immovable object (i.e. it doesn't specify a particular standard of lock with which to do so).

Is my policy the exception to the general rule?

Mathew

 

[Panter]

From reading this forum it is apparent that particular Sold Secure ratings seem to be a mandated requirement of many insurance policies, however my insurer (More Than) makes no other requirement than for the bike to be locked to an immovable object (i.e. it doesn't specify a particular standard of lock with which to do so).

Is my policy the exception to the general rule?

Mathew

Ours (through the Pru) states the same, there is no standard given for the lock.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

From reading this forum it is apparent that particular Sold Secure ratings seem to be a mandated requirement of many insurance policies, however my insurer (More Than) makes no other requirement than for the bike to be locked to an immovable object (i.e. it doesn't specify a particular standard of lock with which to do so).

Is my policy the exception to the general rule?

Mathew

If you add the bike to your household policy, or it's covered by default, I don't think the insurers really know the risk they're taking (but make sure that your policy covers your bike - there might be a clause stating that moveable objects or something over £xx are not covered unless specifically listed).

If you have specialised bike cover (as I do); insurers are much more aware of the risks and place restrictions accordingly.

 

[Davidc]

From reading this forum it is apparent that particular Sold Secure ratings seem to be a mandated requirement of many insurance policies, however my insurer (More Than) makes no other requirement than for the bike to be locked to an immovable object (i.e. it doesn't specify a particular standard of lock with which to do so).

Is my policy the exception to the general rule?

Mathew

In the policy douments that's more or less what mine says, except that it says frame, but I was sent a separate recommendations leaflet which in the relevant part suggests using sold secure gold locks, so I wonder if they'd try a reduction if the lock was below that. Hence my buying one.

Edit: I also keep a couple of photos showing how the bikes are locked up, home and away.

 

[Alan Whicker]

I'm not sure how trustworthy the Sold Secure ratings are anyway - there are lots of arguments all over the web about their testing methods.

 

[Davidc]

As I've said on here before I don't think any lock will keep a determined thief off. There are plenty of videos on the web showing how fast even the best locks come off.

My concern is to make it easier for the casual thief to pinch someone elses non-locked bike, or persuade my insurers that I'd followed their requirements, so that they'll buy me a new one if it does go. Using a sold secure lock, as suggested by them, is a way to do that. So is using an alarm, so is keeping reference pictures of the bike and its frame number and having it registered on a couple of monitoring sites on the web..

 

[Deleted member 1258]

I have been looking at these http://shop.yale.co.uk/acatalog/New_Products.html
and these http://www.redhot-products.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=65&products_id=180
as a possible way to beef up security, not a hundred percent sure of how effective they would be or how acceptable they would be to the insurance companys if I had to make a claim.

 

[MJN]

I have been looking at these http://shop.yale.co....w_Products.html
and these http://www.redhot-pr...products_id=180
as a possible way to beef up security, not a hundred percent sure of how effective they would be or how acceptable they would be to the insurance companys if I had to make a claim.

The Yale ones are rebadged Lock Alarm's - I use the standard Lock Alarm on my bike carrier.

I think it is fair to say that the real strength with these locks is in the alarm aspect, and that their physical security effectiveness is limited. However, the manufacturer makes no attempt to hide this fact - they openly declare that it is the noise/shock aspect that provides the benefit. Perhaps something like a Lock Alarm Mini could prove a valuable lightweight edition to your existing lock thanks to its movement-detection facility? If someone is sawing, drilling, perhaps even picking, your main lock then this alarm might go off - whether the thief or anyone else cares is a different story but I'd be confident in it changing the odds in your favour.

It is difficult to choose a one-size-fits-all lock because thieve's skills, equipment, determination and gall all vary so much that you cannot possibly hope to employ a 'one size fits all' solution, particularly when you have to balance security against your own convenience.

Mathew

 

[allen-uk]

1) Quite agree that adding to household insurance is by far the cheapest option (£15 from Churchill, PER ANNUM!)

Drawback: maximum of £1500 with most insurance companies, and they won't budge.

2) Couple of 3pp PDF files showing locks, chains, etc. (including the weight of each), and reports on how long your average toe-rag might take to get them off:

http://dl.dropbox.co...%20part%201.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.co...%20part%202.pdf

Some of the biggest heaviest monster locks do NOT come off too well. A useful read.


Allen.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

iirc The govt department for consumer affairs declined to prosecute one, or several, of the Midlands trading standards authorities "not in the public interest" once the Motorcycle Action Group had shown the inadequacy of the testing methods and, inter alia, the sold secure locks themselves. Such a seal of approval means almost nothing from the point of view of theft prevention but it means almost everything in terms of being able to even start to make a successful claim on the insurance policy whose underwriters stipulate a sold secure lock as a condition of cover. So don't think of them as thief stoppers as they aren't think of them more as an insurance t & c. No sold secure lock, no cover.

and if you read the small print of the policy you'll find it isn't just the lock, but what it is secured to, and how, that is also a condition of cover, and some of the companies do employ eager beaver loss adjusters even for bike policies.

 

[XmisterIS]

This talk of locks makes me ponder on the practicalities of designing frames so that they contain integrated locks. Perhaps something that interacts with the bottom bracket and freewheel to stop the cranks and rear wheel from rotating when the lock is engaged - so that even if the thief breaks through the external bit that is attached to the lamp-post, they'll have difficultly taking the bike away. Add to that an integrated very loud alarm - and you have a chav carrying a wailing bike awkwardly down the street, with a broken lock trailing from it ... I think that would put them off!

 

[hotmetal]

After reading this I don't know which is worse, the thieving scum or the insurance companies (oh, hang on, they're one and the same). I can't believe you can buy a SS gold lock only for it to be 'downgraded' later, either!

Fortunately I don't have to leave my bikes in a vulnerable area. Both of my 'proper' bikes are too posh to count under household insurance, but my commuter is not much for anyone to get too excited about nicking anyway. Trouble is, half the time if they can't nick it they just kick in the wheels out of general yoof yobbery. My good bikes are in the garage, which has extra security on the door, and then they are ground anchored to a motorbike-level anchor that would need a Kango to get out, using some pretty heavy duty motorbike locks. None of these is portable enough to actually carry, and some of the locks weigh as much as the bikes! Even so, the motorbike mags did similar tests to the ones in Allen-uk's PDFs and came to the same conclusion: even the best lock only lasts a few minutes against someone who's properly armed and the lighter a lock is, generally the weaker.

All in all I tend to agree that all you're really doing is complying with t+cs, and hoping that the evil human excrement thief will just pick the next bike along if it looks easier.

 

[CopperBrompton]

1) Quite agree that adding to household insurance is by far the cheapest option (£15 from Churchill, PER ANNUM!)
Drawback: maximum of £1500 with most insurance companies, and they won't budge.

Never had that problem. Mine has a declared value of £2500, and my insurer is perfectly happy with that. No requirement on the lock, just that the bike must be locked to an immoveable object, but I do use a Sold Secure Gold lock.

 

[scouserinlondon]

I must admit it is a pain to carry locks due to their weight and size - not sure if you intend to fix it to your bike on carry in your pannier / rucksack. I have the Halfords Magnum D Locks as they were Sold Secure Gold - thankfully not yet tested! No weight given but this one is a relatively small D lock and plenty of Halford's stores to view before you buy. Also they are offering their buy a 2nd for half price promo, assumed from your post that you need two locks.

This lock is good. I leave my Kryptonite New York lock at work and carry one of these around. The shackle is VERY small so it's a real pain in the arse to fix and forcing the bike around sheffiled stands with this lock has caused a few paint chips, but it's tight when it's finally on.