Martin Wilson wrote:
> The thing that bugs me here is I mentioned the walmart site to show
> pricing comparision with the uk
And as before, with your observation that junk can be had cheaper in
some places than others (direct no-name rather than rebranded by Falcon
last time), the fact that it's junk and one is better off without it at
any price is the more useful piece of information.
> opposite but I still find it interesting to see how the bike are
> equipped and to see how they are priced.
I'll say it again: you can't rate equipment by a simple list of
features. A simple case in point: 1964 Ford Popular has a 1600 4
cylinder engine, so does a 2004 Lotus Elise. So the cars are equipped
with engines that are basically the same in terms of what they can do?
> However I'm sure its obvious to all I am not as anti cheap bikes as
> other people as I do have one in addition to a kona model and an old
> Raleigh. I do find it a shame though that many people who have cheap
> bikes and come to uk.rec.cycling get a frosty reception
This isn't the case: you're only feeling you're getting a frosty
reception because you're taking the fact that many people here think
supermarket bikes are atrocious to heart and spitting back. But lest
you think it's just a snob's plot on u.r.c, here's a quote from the
Cycling Scotland web site, a Scottish Executive funded setup designed
to *promote* cycle use in Scotland (
http://www.cyclingscotland.org/).
1/ How much to spend.
The answer is "Enough that the bicycle will allow me to do what I need
it to in comfort and safety." If you are looking to buy a first bike, or
a bike to enjoy gentle leisure or fitness riding, then you should expect
to spend around £200. If you will be using your bike regularly, suchas
for commuting, or will need performance or load carrying capacity such
as for mountain biking on rugged terrain, club cycling or cycle-touring
you will need to spend more to ensure the reliability, strength or light
weight required. As with all sporting equipment, bicycles can cost many
thousands of pounds, but unless you require cutting edge performance
they don't have to. And unlike, say a set of skis or a tennis racquet, a
bicycle can be used much more widely than just for sport or recreation.
> real world many people are forced to buy cheap bikes because the rate
> of bike theft in the uk is ridiculous. Something like 400,000 a year
> are stolen. There are so many people that have invested in decent
> bikes and appreciatted the quality and ride of them who simply have
> them taken from them and decide to go for a cheap bike.
People spend a lot more on cars, and lots of them are stolen. Part of
the answer is that's what insurance is for.
> evidence against them. My point is the decision to make do with a
> cheap bike rather than spend more on a more reliable more efficient
> model is often based on the fact that a) its less likely to be stolen
> and b) if it is stolen only £50 is lost compared to £500.
This ignores the reality of Amsterdam, one of the most prodigious cycle
theft areas on the planet. Lots of people ride rat traps around the
place, but they're basically sound engineering, which supermarket bikes
aren't. The typical spend on a new bike in NL is about £350 IIRC,
despite the theft problem being much worse in places, and the nice ones
are locked carefully, leaving the thieves to get the not inconsiderable
quantity that are /not/ locked carefully.
Most expensive bikes in the UK are expensive because they're high end
sports equipment, which is felt to be desirable and which is thus
targeted for theft. It also makes poor utility transport, but people
persist in riding their expensive XC MTBs around town anyway... Put a
goodish mountain bike next to a £700 Orbit City 7 (hub gears, chain
guard, mudguards, rack) in a back street and guess which one will be the
theft priority?
> currently stands. I really think you should take on board that in some
> areas bike theft is so bad that a cheap bike is the only sensible
> option.
My Brompton would set you back about £700 new. They're very popularto
steal in London right now thanks to the congestion charge. But it's a
/very/ secure bike because I can just fold it up and take it in with me.
A lot of the problem with theft is people don't think very hard about
how, when and where they leave bikes. Back to Amsterdam, thousands of
bikes are parked long term in the streets, and "bike thief" is
practically a profession to some. But still people don't buy cheese
bikes from the supermarket like they do in the US and UK.
It's also the case that it isn't just about price, it's about
desirability. You take a classic city bike and it's intrinsically much
safer than the dozen MTBs it's locked amongst because it isn't sporty.
> It doesn't matter how good a lock you have if you park a
> decent bike up and leave it you will come back to just a frame and
> rear wheel locked up or a thief with bolt cutters or a drill will have
> taken the whole bike.
It does matter how good a lock, because a hardened steel D-lock takes a
lot more effort, even with power tools, to break than something, well,
/cheap/. Also the case that choice of locking location makes a
difference. A thief isn't going to get going with an angle grinder in a
thoroughfare with a CCTV pole at the end if there's something easier
round the corner, and there often is something easier round the corner.
You appear to have gone off at a tangent. You can apply all your
arguments to cars, possibly excepting the recent tracking beacon jobs.
Yet people still spend a lot more on cars than on bikes. If you get a
basically sound utility bike it is not a great theft magnet, especially
with a spot of Hammerite and some gaffer tape. Get one that folds up
and you avoid most of the problems of security.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
