Will Bicycle Theft Increase?



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>, Doug Kennedy
<[email protected]> writes:

> Things would really have to go to hell before gas became completely unavailable at any price,
> which is what it would take to force most people onto bikes.

I figure in those circumstances, people would just modify their car engines to run on methanol, or
canola oil, or coal dust, or Chanel No. 5 if they have to. Actually, R&D in biofuel is still ongoing
-- I dunno if it's really advancing by much, though.

> People are EXTREMELY motivated to not let this happen.

You can say that again.

This thread kinda reminded me of "The Grapes of Wrath", especially the parts about the mad scramble
for anything on wheels (except bicycles).

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca
 
[email protected] (Paul Southworth) wrote in message
news:<fja4a.32642$A%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Chris Phillipo
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >says...
> >>
> >> Suppose the petroleum supply is reduced enough, so that not only the price of gas keeps
> >> rising, but it becomes hard to buy or completely unavailable at times. Will this result
> >> in bikes becoming so much in demand, that they will be stolen in greatly increased
> >> numbers? Will the term, "bike-jacking", become part of our vocabulary?
> >
> >I think they are already being stolen as fast as they are being purchased, there probably
> >wouldn't even be a worth while market for new bikes in college towns if it weren't for the
> >thieves :)
>
> Doesn't that sort of assume that stolen bikes are removed from the "market"? I thought they were
> part of the market. You don't mean to tell me those thieves are all collectors...?
>
> --Paul

A local pawn shop owner in Texas, tells me that all the bikes he get's are sold in bulk and shipped
to Mexico.

Jack Dingler
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> A local pawn shop owner in Texas, tells me that all the bikes he get's are sold in bulk and
> shipped to Mexico.

Lots of bikes make it to container ships and head for other countries. I remember a bust in Texas a
few years back where they found a couple of containers filled with stolen bikes.

-Buck
 
I always wondered where stolen bikes went. I figured that it must be organized crime, I don't see
many street hoodlums or pawn shops selling slightly used high end bikes.

"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > A local pawn shop owner in Texas, tells me that all the bikes he get's are sold in bulk and
> > shipped to Mexico.
>
> Lots of bikes make it to container ships and head for other countries. I remember a bust in Texas
> a few years back where they found a couple of containers filled with stolen bikes.
>
> -Buck
 
A shortage of gas could simply increase the demand for bikes, thus raising their prices, thus
incenting manufacturers to produce more, thus increasing supply, thus bringing prices back down. As
gasoline is not used to produce bikes (directly) the endeavors of driving and bicycle manufacturing
do not compete for the same resource. Therefore a shortage of one thing (gas) will not prohibit the
increased supply of the other (bikes).

"Steve McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Suppose the petroleum supply is reduced enough, so that not only the price of gas keeps
> rising, but it becomes hard to buy or completely unavailable at times. Will this result in
> bikes becoming so much in demand, that they will be stolen in greatly increased numbers?
> Will the term, "bike-jacking", become part of our vocabulary?
>
> Close to 1,000 bikes are stolen (reported) in my community every year. Only a small
> percentage are recovered and the police provide no solution to this.
>
> I'd advise those who ride regularly to find an old beater or two now, while they're still
> available, in the $25-$50. category and keep them in reserve. During World War II, when no
> new cars were sold, used cars went for a premium price, if one could even be found. I imagine
> that bicycles were very popular then, and also hard to buy. Do any old-timers remember what
> the bicycle availability and usage was back then?
>
> Steve McDonald
 
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Doug Kennedy
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Things would really have to go to hell before gas became completely unavailable at any price,
> > which is what it would take to force most people onto bikes.

Fuel will always be available at some price, somewhere. That doesn't mean people will have access,
enough cash, the right contacts, etc...

The current high prices are due to Venezuela, being down 3.4 million barrels a day in production.
They've come back up the last week or so, another 1 million barrels and that has increased supply
some. But it will take months for that increase to hit US pumps. The US has also contracted an
additional 500,000 barrels a day from Iraq to help offset the shortage.

Since the year 2000 oil production has essentially levelled off for the first time in a century.
This event is really unparralled. The 1990s was probably the last chance for the world to do
serious work to find alternatives. In a few years, worldwide oil production is expected to begin
falling, forever.

http://hubbertpeak.com

> I figure in those circumstances, people would just modify their car engines to run on methanol, or
> canola oil, or coal dust, or Chanel No. 5 if they have to. Actually, R&D in biofuel is still
> ongoing -- I dunno if it's really advancing by much, though.

Biodiesel has been around for decades. It's pretty mature now. We could probably produce enough to
keep the farmers going and provide some for military jeeps, but unless people can learn to stop
eating, it won't be a widespread commercial product. Only so much sunlight can be converted to oil
in a season.

> > People are EXTREMELY motivated to not let this happen.
>
> You can say that again.
>
> This thread kinda reminded me of "The Grapes of Wrath", especially the parts about the mad
> scramble for anything on wheels (except bicycles).
>
>
> cheers, Tom

Jack (Getting his bicycle back in order) Dingler
 
"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> In article
<[email protected]>,
> Doug Kennedy <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Things would really have to go to hell before gas became
completely
> > unavailable at any price, which is what it would take to
force most people
> > onto bikes.
>
> I figure in those circumstances, people would just modify
their
> car engines to run on methanol, or canola oil, or coal
dust, or
> Chanel No. 5 if they have to.

We once ran a Lamborghini on hi-test booze from a corner liquor store, after running out of gas. It
ran poorly but it did run, well enough to get to a gas station. True story, I swear.

> Actually, R&D in biofuel is still ongoing -- I dunno if it's really advancing by much,
though.

Biodiesel has been pretty well R'ed and D'ed. It's just more expensive to produce. That's not
necessarily a show-stopper for all time, but it is in the current economy. You can buy it in the US
for about $4 a gallon, but that doesn't include road taxes or normal distribution costs.

A few farmers around here use it to run their tractors and stuff. They can make it themselves in
small quanities for about half the cost of buying petro diesel. Large scale commercial production is
another story, though.

Matt O.
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> A local pawn shop owner in Texas, tells me that all the
bikes he get's
> are sold in bulk and shipped to Mexico.

I wonder how many are stolen in bulk and shipped to Mexico! Cars sure are...

Matt O.
 
"KBH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:4ZU4a.165940$2H6.3163@sccrnsc04...

> A shortage of gas could simply increase the demand for
bikes, thus raising
> their prices, thus incenting manufacturers to produce
more, thus increasing
> supply, thus bringing prices back down. As gasoline is
not used to produce
> bikes (directly) the endeavors of driving and bicycle
manufacturing do not
> compete for the same resource. Therefore a shortage of
one thing (gas) will
> not prohibit the increased supply of the other (bikes).

Well, according to a friend who worked there, Supergo saw a big spike in sales when CA really got
tough on auto insurance enforcement a few years ago. Apparently, a lot of people decided all of a
sudden that it wasn't worth the risk getting caught driving without insurance, so they bought bikes
and rode instead. Public transport saw a spike in ridership at the same time.

This is sort of analagous because it has to do with a sudden increase in the cost of driving.

Matt O.
 
Making bio-diesel is low tech, that I doubt that economies of scale produce significant
cost savings.

A farmer can make the stuff from materials, that come right off the farm.

Because of the simplicity, it's also one of the few artificial fuels that have an easy to calculate
Energy Returned On Energy Invested. Figures from memory put it at 5:1.

No way it's going to replace our 750,000,000 barrels of oil / year cosumption habit though.

I see no alternative but for the US to get used to cycling.

Jack Dingler

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > In article
> <[email protected]>,
> > Doug Kennedy <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > Things would really have to go to hell before gas became
> completely
> > > unavailable at any price, which is what it would take to
> force most people
> > > onto bikes.
> >
> > I figure in those circumstances, people would just modify
> their
> > car engines to run on methanol, or canola oil, or coal
> dust, or
> > Chanel No. 5 if they have to.
>
> We once ran a Lamborghini on hi-test booze from a corner liquor store, after running out of gas.
> It ran poorly but it did run, well enough to get to a gas station. True story, I swear.
>
> > Actually, R&D in biofuel is still ongoing -- I dunno if it's really advancing by much,
> though.
>
> Biodiesel has been pretty well R'ed and D'ed. It's just more expensive to produce. That's not
> necessarily a show-stopper for all time, but it is in the current economy. You can buy it in the
> US for about $4 a gallon, but that doesn't include road taxes or normal distribution costs.
>
> A few farmers around here use it to run their tractors and stuff. They can make it themselves in
> small quanities for about half the cost of buying petro diesel. Large scale commercial production
> is another story, though.
>
> Matt O.
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Making bio-diesel is low tech, that I doubt that economies of scale produce significant cost
> savings.

Especially when we consider other factors into the equation. Water is a prime example. Right now 70%
of worldwide water consumption is used for irrigation. In the U.S., the amount used for irrigation
is over 80%. In Texas, over 80% of the agricultural production comes from the panhandle - one of the
driest parts of the state. It was originally concentrated around the southern tip and the
"breadbasket" - a strip of central Texas that follows I-35 from Oklahoma down to Austin. Now it is
mostly urban.

Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these important factors before they proclaim biofuels to
be the answer to our woes. We would have to increase agricultural output and those increases would
likely occur in areas which require additional irrigation which would have significant impacts on
our water supplies which are already running thin in most parts of our nation. If you think
California is crazy for depending on imported energy, they are even more dependent upon imported
water. Texas is now dealing with water rights issues because some parts of the state are outgrowing
their water supplies. It's a trend that will continue over the western 2/3rds of the U.S.,
especially if we have to literally grow our new fuel source.

-Buck
 
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|
| > Especially when we consider other factors into the
| equation. Water is a
| > prime example. Right now 70% of worldwide water
| consumption is used for
| > irrigation. In the U.S., the amount used for irrigation is
| over 80%. In
| > Texas, over 80% of the agricultural production comes from
| the panhandle -
| > one of the driest parts of the state. It was originally
| concentrated around
| > the southern tip and the "breadbasket" - a strip of
| central Texas that
| > follows I-35 from Oklahoma down to Austin. Now it is
| mostly urban.
| >
| > Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these
| important factors before
| > they proclaim biofuels to be the answer to our woes. We
| would have to
| > increase agricultural output and those increases would
| likely occur in areas
| > which require additional irrigation which would have
| significant impacts on
| > our water supplies which are already running thin in most
| parts of our
| > nation. If you think California is crazy for depending on
| imported energy,
| > they are even more dependent upon imported water. Texas is
| now dealing with
| > water rights issues because some parts of the state are
| outgrowing their
| > water supplies. It's a trend that will continue over the
| western 2/3rds of
| > the U.S., especially if we have to literally grow our new
| fuel source.
|
| This is true.
|
| What's worse, CA is importing all that water, but wasting their own to grow *rice* in the middle
| of a desert. And I'll be damned if I'm going to take 3 minute showers so Donald Bren can build
| another golf course.
|
| Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from now,
| and over water, not oil.
|
| Matt O.
|
Who do you expect, will fight whom for water?

ED3
 
"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Especially when we consider other factors into the
equation. Water is a
> prime example. Right now 70% of worldwide water
consumption is used for
> irrigation. In the U.S., the amount used for irrigation is
over 80%. In
> Texas, over 80% of the agricultural production comes from
the panhandle -
> one of the driest parts of the state. It was originally
concentrated around
> the southern tip and the "breadbasket" - a strip of
central Texas that
> follows I-35 from Oklahoma down to Austin. Now it is
mostly urban.
>
> Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these
important factors before
> they proclaim biofuels to be the answer to our woes. We
would have to
> increase agricultural output and those increases would
likely occur in areas
> which require additional irrigation which would have
significant impacts on
> our water supplies which are already running thin in most
parts of our
> nation. If you think California is crazy for depending on
imported energy,
> they are even more dependent upon imported water. Texas is
now dealing with
> water rights issues because some parts of the state are
outgrowing their
> water supplies. It's a trend that will continue over the
western 2/3rds of
> the U.S., especially if we have to literally grow our new
fuel source.

This is true.

What's worse, CA is importing all that water, but wasting their own to grow *rice* in the middle of
a desert. And I'll be damned if I'm going to take 3 minute showers so Donald Bren can build another
golf course.

Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from now,
and over water, not oil.

Matt O.
 
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:15:37 -0600, <[email protected]>, "Edward Dike, III"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>| Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from now,
>| and over water, not oil.
>|
>| Matt O.
>|
>Who do you expect, will fight whom for water?
>
>ED3

The IMF and World Bank cronies against everybody else.
--
zk
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:15:37 -0600, <[email protected]>, "Edward Dike, III"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>| Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from
>>| now, and over water, not oil.
>>|
>>| Matt O.
>>|
>>Who do you expect, will fight whom for water?
>>
>>ED3
>
> The IMF and World Bank cronies against everybody else.

What Zoot you get this kind of nonsence at the CM rides or did you just figure it all by yourself?
 
"Mike Latondresse" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> What Zoot you get this kind of nonsence at the CM rides or did you just figure it all by yourself?

I image the coversation after one of his 'bike polo' games would be in that catorgory as well.
 
Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:02:13 GMT, <[email protected]>, Mike Latondresse
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>| Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from
>>>| now, and over water, not oil.
>>>|
>>>| Matt O.
>>>|
>>>Who do you expect, will fight whom for water?
>>>
>>>ED3
>>
>> The IMF and World Bank cronies against everybody else.
>
>What Zoot you get this kind of nonsence at the CM rides or did you just figure it all by yourself?

Tank Girl clued me.

Actually, you just have to plug _water war_ into Google and those are the most powerful and
pervasively recurring players in hydro-strategic machinations.

The privatisation of our water is the tip of the wedge and should be recognised as an attack on all
life by the greed mongers.
--
zk
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> The privatisation of our water is the tip of the wedge and should be recognised as an attack on
> all life by the greed mongers.

Zoot my water is always private unless I am on a long ride and then I look for some bushes. On the
other hand Fab can probably go underway.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o
r p . c o m> writes:

> Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these important factors before they proclaim biofuels
> to be the answer to our woes.

Here's a li'l excerpt of a propagandum from those who talk of biofuels:
http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=2213

"Higher Corn Yields are Making Ethanol More Energy Efficient

A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture study found that ethanol production is becoming more
energy-efficient all the time because corn yields are rising, less energy is required to grow
it, and ethanol conversion technologies are becoming more efficient.1

While the August 2002 study -- The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update -- did not
specifically mention biotechnology, a co-author of the report says an updated version of the
study will likely include references to biotechnology and other innovations that have led to
greater yields, which have made ethanol conversion even more efficient.

My guess is that when we review the new data from 2000 and 2001 we?ll see higher yields, and
maybe some of that is attributable to biotech corn,? said James Duffield, an economist with the
USDA?s Office of the Chief Economist."

> We would have to increase agricultural output and those increases would likely occur in areas
> which require additional irrigation which would have significant impacts on our water supplies
> which are already running thin in most parts of our nation.

Who says it must be domestically produced? My [unsubstantiated] guess is that it would be quite easy
for certain multinational corporations to "persuade" less well-to-do nations in, say, Africa, to
forego growing their traditional crops, in favour of biofuel-producing biomass -- possibly
genetically engineered to thrive in drier climates, and to produce high yields. The stuff would of
course be licensable as intellectual property, so the growers would have to meet certain commitments
for the priviledge to be exploi-... er ... to grow it. (Okay, I admit I've become a bit of a
Rifkinite.)

So, I'm skeptical of biofuel as an alternative fuel -- not only because of its possible
socio/political implications; I also sense it's too much of a stop-gap measure that distracts from
the quest for a cleaner and more abundant energy source.

But just to play devil's advocate: the existing fossil fuel- powered technology would readily be
adaptable as legacy technology for biofuel. And cleaner, less GHG-emitting[*], or resource-consuming
production methods *might* be discovered. But then, a hog might jump outa my butt one day, too.

cheers, Tom

[*] I understand one of the attractions of biofuel is that biomass, as it grows, is supposed to
"re-consume" GHGs. emitted from previous use. But I believe current production methods actually
contribute more GHGs on top of those produced by just using the fuel. There's stuff on the good ol'
"dependable" ;-) WWWeb to that effect, anyway.

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca
 
"Mike Latondresse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Zoot my water is always private unless I am on a long ride and then I look for some bushes. On the
> other hand Fab can probably go underway.
>
I don't do it underway, but a good roadie never has to get out of sight in the bushes just to
relieve himself. Just do it fast and get it over with and don't worry about the general public,
unless they happen to pull over and ask for directions while you're still at it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Replies
12
Views
1K
T