Shock warning! Should we ask for Registration?

In this thread from Rog in The Charging Post, he raises the issue of e-bike insurance high cost compared to his motorbike, commenting on the huge problem of bike theft probably a cause.

 

Given that bike theft is such a major national problem, the high cost of e-bikes and quality sport bikes, owners worries about this, and the large amounts they pay for locks and insurance, perhaps UK registration for bikes and tax at say £10 a year would be a good idea.

 

Bikes could carry a small profile bike number plate on either rear mudguard or seat stem and that would be a huge theft deterrent. Some car thefts and cloning still continue due to gangs of professional thieves and the very high value of cars, but the lower value of bikes would make that sort of theft much less likely, the value simply wouldn't sustain it. Most bike thefts are by much less professional types anyway, and having to have a number plate and registration document giving proof of ownership to sell one would stymie them.

 

The cost of £10 is likely to be more than covered for those who insure, due to the drop in premiums that would result from a massive drop in thefts, I'd expect whole bike theft to drop by at least 90%.

 

So would the government support this? I think they would, the £15 a year moped tax is worth it to them, bike registration and annual tax at £10 would bring in at least £20 millions annually to the exchequer, and they'd love the crime reduction. The rear number plate could be small yet clear to read, since with bikes only a fifteenth of the number of cars, the alpha-numeric combination would be very simple.

 

I see this as a potentially big gain in loss of worries with a reduction in cost of long term ownership, but what do you think?

.

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by flecc

Bike theft is a big problem in Holland also. I am not too sure whether this scheme would work. Unlike cars, bikes and motor cycles are not easy to catch when spotted.

In Swansea, we have problems with youngsters riding stolen motor bikes on the open hill sides. They seem to keep these bikes hidden and ride them to death, rather than trying to sell them on.

My one hesitation is that once you give rag bag politicians any thing, sooner or later, they will want more.

Personally, I would rather pressure MPs for far heavy sentences for bike thieves, rather than the ludicrous and immoral leniency currently shown towards them.

The real problem is the theft for gain Mike, not the odd kids stealing to ride, and it's that majority theft for gain that would disappear. Kids don't steal e-bikes to try them anyway, no key.

 

I'd also considered the aspect of politicians wanting more, and I don't see it. MOTs would be seen as to expensive to set up for tiny returns, and unnecessary anyway, so what else would there be? The tax couldn't be higher than the moped £15.

 

Severe sentences don't work, ever. Surely we have enough evidence for that.

 

So where's the real objection?

.

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by flecc

What about kids bikes? What about bikes that don't have a place for a registration plate (my full sus mtb doesn't)?

 

Also, for registration document + plate to be an effective method of making theft unattractive you'd have to tie it up with some form of comprehensive VIN type system. This would require the Chinese manufacturers getting onboard to impklement any VIN type system.

 

Also, many expensive mountain bikes and racers that are stolen are broken up and sold as parts on ebay, rather than being sold as complete bikes - similar to modded cars that are stolen.

 

Road Fund Licence (stop calling it tax ;-) ) should be zero rated as cycles are zero emission - just like electric cars that are also zero rated for RFL.

 

I'd be in favour of voluntary registration but not mandatory.

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by amigafan2003

Your second paragraph is persuasive! Perhaps I will change my mind.

As to severe sentences not working, I totally disagree. Leniency fails to bring home the full consequences of their actions to criminals. In effect, as the alcoholics say, it is enabling behaviour which only allows the criminal to continue their predatory ways. Nobody can change someone else, only that person themselves, and generally they only do it when they hit rock bottom.

Sorry Amigafan, but wrong on all points. Why don't people read what is posted?

 

What about kids bikes? What about bikes that don't have a place for a registration plate (my full sus mtb doesn't)?

 

I did say seat stem as well as rear number plate, and somewhere can always be devised.

 

Also, for registration document + plate to be an effective method of making theft unattractive you'd have to tie it up with some form of comprehensive VIN type system. This would require the Chinese manufacturers getting onboard to impklement any VIN type system.

 

Not true, VIN only applies to cloning prevention, and as I've posted, bike values including most e-bikes are too low to make that worthwhile. Number plate and registration document showing the owner is sufficient as said.

 

Also, many expensive mountain bikes and racers that are stolen are broken up and sold as parts on ebay, rather than being sold as complete bikes - similar to modded cars that are stolen.

 

Again I posted to allow for that, only referring to "whole bike thefts". As posted, my concern is the great majority of bike thefts for gain, and what I propose would deal with that.

 

Road Fund Licence (stop calling it tax ;-) ) should be zero rated as cycles are zero emission - just like electric cars that are also zero rated for RFL.

 

Wrong again. It stopped being the Road Fund Licence long ago, it's VED (vehicle excise duty) which is a tax. Zero emission exemption is a motor vehicle measure, and legal e-bikes are not classed as motor vehicles.

 

I'd be in favour of voluntary registration but not mandatory.

 

Hardly anyone would register, so not worthwhile. Only a national scheme would work.

.

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by flecc

Sorry Amigafan, but wrong on all points. Why don't people read what is posted?

 

 

 

I did say seat stem as well as rear number plate, and somewhere can always be devised.

 

 

 

Not true, VIN only applies to cloning prevention, and as I've posted, bike values including most e-bikes are too low to make that worthwhile. Number plate and registration document showing the owner is sufficient as said.

 

 

 

Again I posted to allow for that, only referring to "whole bike thefts". As posted, my concern is the great majority of bike thefts for gain, and what I propose would deal with that.

 

 

 

Wrong again. It stopped being the Road Fund Licence long ago, it's VED (vehicle excise duty) which is a tax. Zero emission exemption is a motor vehicle measure, and legal e-bikes are not classed as motor vehicles.

 

 

 

Hardly anyone would register, so not worthwhile. Only a national scheme would work.

.

 

Sorry Flecc - I was speed reading on my lunch break so I apologise for not reading your initial post properly.

 

Props for taking the time to correct me in a thoroughly articulate and friendly manner though

As to severe sentences not working, I totally disagree.

 

There's opinion and facts Mike, and all the evidence shows severe sentencing not only doesn't work, it makes the problem worse. Example 1:

 

The sentencing after the Toxteth riots didn't stop the Poll Tax riot. The severe sentencing after the Poll Tax riot didn't stop the recent riots. In fact they've got far worse over the years as the sentences have grown tougher, the recent ones the worst ever by far. After the current sentencing the next riots will be worse yet.

 

Example 2:

 

When I was much younger, sentences of five years or more were very rare, crime was low and only 11,000 were in our prisons.

 

The insanity of severe sentencing began with the Great Train Robbery and has continued since then.

 

The outcome is massively increased crime levels and eight times as many in prison, 88,000.

 

As I said, severe sentences don't work, fact.

 

The two things are connected, extreme punishment breeds resentment and extreme outcomes. Savagery breeds savagery. It's a simple fact of physics and life that every action results in an equal and opposite reaction. It works in the opposite direction too. Every experienced driver knows that if they courteously let someone enter from a side road, they in turn let someone else in further down the road.

Sorry Flecc - I was speed reading on my lunch break so I apologise for not reading your initial post properly.

 

Props for taking the time to correct me in a thoroughly articulate and friendly manner though

 

Thank you Amigafan, you are a gentleman.

I totally agree Tony, as usual, you have thought this through thoroughly.

 

One point though, how secure would the registration plate be?

One point though, how secure would the registration plate be?

 

Just as insecure as car ones really, though defence bolts could be used to prevent easy removal. The real security comes from the need for a registration document to sell one though, since this bears the owners name and address and change of ownership would also be notifiable. This alone would stop the bulk of all thefts.

Oops, silly me didn't think of that one Tony, I should have known you would have thought of everything:o. The document being the important part giving proof of ownership:)

@flecc . Are you seriously suggesting more regulation by the government ? Next you will be advocating Tachographs in cars , speed limiters and microchips in the neck ! Being serious though , I can see where you are coming from . I agree though that £10 Push bike tax could easily be the thin end of the wedge . Push bike tax has always got to be lower than moped tax ? Even a guy who is so thick that he locks his bike to a 2foot high bollard can see that the way forward would be to increase moped tax . The other problem is , how many bikes do you own ? remember that even if the bike was not being used , it would need to be SORNED . I think what is needed is more sting operations and bait bikes . In my motorcycle days , I knew a guy who had an old mobile phone hidden on his bike , and wired to the bike`s battery . Aparently you can arrange to have the phone tracked if the bike goes missing . Or they could make a simpler smaller phone type device that just transmits a signal for tracking . Yes I know , it would contravene our human rights to be tracked all the time , but unless I was having an affair with the vicker`s wife , it would not bother me a great deal .

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by neptune

Flecc, this kind of scheme might appear to work for whole bike thefts where the innocent buyer of stolen goods is not looking for cheap (or expensive) stolen whole bikes, in that case it's a cracking idea, as that provides protection for the straight buyer off ebay, down the pub, from a mate or wherever else advertised, although the scheme would need to be good enough to reduce the incidence of fraudulent paperwork and number plates.

 

However I think it raises further questions and issues that need to be thought through before you could state that it might work to reduce bike thefts:

 

1. What are the stats for what happens to stolen bikes, are the majority then offered for sale as whole items, or are they broken for parts?

2. Those knowingly buying stolen whole bikes will not care about provenance and still buy to ride around on, what are the stats for the type of buyer of bikes, where do whole bikes eventually end up?

3. The market for broken cycle parts may increase as they would be untraceable, the thieves may not necessarily be hit where it hurts (their pockets). Effectively the market may switch from whole bikes to cycle parts. In the stolen motorbike world, it appears that broken bikes can be worth more than whole bikes (although I have no stats to backup this assertion).

4. More bikes may be shipped abroad for sale, similar to the way premium cars are shipped abroad.

 

Rather than a number plate, I would have thought that security marking of the bike (and possibly parts) would be a better idea? Similar to the way the police implement their security marking scheme, all that would need to happen would be to make it mandatory and reduce the cost!

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by eTim

Severe sentences don't work, ever. Surely we have enough evidence for that.

 

Nelson Mandela served 27 years and he hasn't re-offended since his release.

@neptune: SORN is a motor vehicle law, bikes are not motor vehicles so wouldn't be subject, What I propose is an entirely separate bike registration, though Swansea could run it since they are the DVLA, i.e. vehicles, not just motor vehicles.

 

There are objections, but the benefits greatly outweigh them.

Flecc, this kind of scheme might appear to work for whole bike thefts where the innocent buyer of stolen goods is not looking for cheap (or expensive) stolen whole bikes, in that case it's a cracking idea, as that provides protection for the straight buyer off ebay, down the pub, from a mate or wherever else advertised, although the scheme would need to be good enough to reduce the incidence of fraudulent paperwork and number plates.

 

However I think it raises further questions and issues that need to be thought through before you could state that it might work to reduce bike thefts:

 

1. What are the stats for what happens to stolen bikes, are the majority then offered for sale as whole items, or are they broken for parts?

2. Those knowingly buying stolen whole bikes will not care about provenance and still buy to ride around on, what are the stats for the type of buyer of bikes, where do whole bikes eventually end up?

3. The market for broken cycle parts may increase as they would be untraceable, the thieves may not necessarily be hit where it hurts (their pockets). Effectively the market may switch from whole bikes to cycle parts. In the stolen motorbike world, it appears that broken bikes can be worth more than whole bikes (although I have no stats to backup this assertion).

4. More bikes may be shipped abroad for sale, similar to the way premium cars are shipped abroad.

 

Rather than a number plate, I would have thought that security marking of the bike (and possibly parts) would be a better idea? Similar to the way the police implement their security marking scheme, all that would need to happen would be to make it mandatory and reduce the cost!

 

There's evidence that a large proportion of bike thefts are just those you mention at the outset. For example, bikes are an obvious target for such as drug users who need to feed daily habits, and our cities have them by the thousand.

 

As observed, bikes and even e-bikes are too low a value for professional thieves, shipping abroad and the like. We already know that in the car field they have to concentrate on high end cars, the average hatchback isn't worth enough, so bikes certainly won't be. Likewise cloning and false number plates, the cost too high for the returns. Remember, thieves need quick returns so sell low, even high end bikes could only fetch much smaller amounts than their true value.

 

Breaking for parts is a very small part of the problem, indeed it's tiny since it only affects high end stuff, and I don't claim a universal panacea. I'm just concerned with the main problem, theft of whole bikes by the sort of individuals mentioned and small gangs, both looking for quick returns. This would crack that problem.

 

Security marking is a dead duck, practically useless. The police have shown no competence in using it and anyway, it does not identify a bike visually or readily show who the owner is. In contrast, the police love ANPR and use it profusely, and it would apply to bikes as well if Swansea administered. A reported-as-stolen bike would immediately be detected from a police vehicle, or if the plate is registered to a black Kalkhoff as shown on screen but on a blue bike that turns out to be another make, again spottable.

 

The objections mainly seem to be that what I propose doesn't cover everything so is not perfect, but nothing is anyway, so basically that's an argument that we should all just give up and do nothing.

 

I'm confident that the bulk of the problem of whole bike theft would disappear, and insurance costs would drop as a result.

 

The only downside I can see is that at some stage compulsory third party insurance could be introduced, but I don't see that as a problem. Those with decent bikes often insure, third party cover is wise anyway, and the costs would be very low since the third party risks of a no-passenger low speed vehicle are very low indeed.

.

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by flecc

Nelson Mandela served 27 years and he hasn't re-offended since his release.

 

You mean he hasn't been caught since his release.

 

Anyway it maybe only because he's been bribed with a huge salary?

Why don't people read what is posted?

.

I'm ok with the reading part provided there are not too many paragraphs. Then I tend to scan ... Its the understanding part that I often have trouble with ... This sounds like a good idea though. But I would want a colour coordinated plate ...

But I would want a colour coordinated plate ...

 

Thanks, that's a further benefit I hadn't mentioned. A reflective rear number plate would greatly increase night safety for cyclists.

There's evidence that a large proportion of bike thefts are just those you mention at the outset. For example, bikes are an obvious target for such as drug users who need to feed daily habits, and our cities have them by the thousand.

 

As observed, bikes and even e-bikes are too low a value for professional thieves, shipping abroad and the like. We already know that in the car field they have to concentrate on high end cars, the average hatchback isn't worth enough, so bikes certainly won't be. Likewise cloning and false number plates, the cost too high for the returns. Remember, thieves need quick returns so sell low, even high end bikes could only fetch much smaller amounts than their true value.

 

Breaking for parts is a very small part of the problem, indeed it's tiny since it only affects high end stuff, and I don't claim a universal panacea. I'm just concerned with the main problem, theft of whole bikes by the sort of individuals mentioned and small gangs, both looking for quick returns. This would crack that problem.

 

Security marking is a dead duck, practically useless. The police have shown no competence in using it and anyway, it does not identify a bike visually or readily show who the owner is. In contrast, the police love ANPR and use it profusely, and it would apply to bikes as well if Swansea administered. A reported-as-stolen bike would immediately be detected from a police vehicle, or if the plate is registered to a black Kalkhoff as shown on screen but on a blue bike that turns out to be another make, again spottable.

 

The objections mainly seem to be that what I propose doesn't cover everything so is not perfect, but nothing is anyway, so basically that's an argument that we should all just give up and do nothing.

 

I'm confident that the bulk of the problem of whole bike theft would disappear, and insurance costs would drop as a result.

 

The only downside I can see is that at some stage compulsory third party insurance could be introduced, but I don't see that as a problem. Those with decent bikes often insure, third party cover is wise anyway, and the costs would be very low since the third party risks of a no-passenger low speed vehicle are very low indeed.

.

 

Ahh yes, of course if it's mandatory then every cycle SHOULD have a number plate, any without are immediately suspicious and should be stopped by the police or reported.

 

ANPR may not work due to the automatic nature of recognising the plate, the police would probably need to manually input the numbers.

 

Insurance would be a sticking point, arguably there would be less need for insurance due to less stolen bikes. I own expensive bikes and don't insure them, my risk, I accept that risk and take care of my stuff accordingly, I would resent compulsory insurance to be introduced when I have little interest in it, unless it was cheap enough. The insurance companies would just see another cash cow in the making given the number of cycles in existence.

 

The size of plate could be an issue, amongst all the other crap that hangs off the rear of my bikes and what happens when mountain biking and it simply falls off or is ripped off? I've lost lights in this manner and not even noticed!! The weight weenies wouldn't be too happy either!

 

Insurance would be my only other objection as long as the cost of registering a bike, once, or on transfer of ownership was cheap enough also.

Edited March 16, 201214 yr by eTim

I'm ok with the reading part provided there are not too many paragraphs. Then I tend to scan

 

Hi Kitchenman.

 

Forgive me being pedantic but you just used an interesting word. When you mentioned that you then, "tend to scan", did you mean that you begin to speed-read or gloss over the written material quickly? The reason I mention it is because someone once pointed out to me when I said that I'd quickly scanned something, that to scan is to inspect minutely or examine closely. I never knew that but of course, you may have intended that. Please don't think I'm correcting you; I only do that when Aldby buggers up his spelling.

 

Indalo

@ eTim: As I remarked earlier, the number plates could be small but still legible, since with bikes only being about one fifteenth of the cars on the roads the alpha-numeric form could be much simpler.

 

ANPR would still read them, since it already reads earlier car number plates in simpler forms.

 

Swansea would have to administer and use the same database, but since all the bikes in use are only about one to two years worth of new car registrations, they would easily cope.

N.B. Metropolitan Police last reported annual bike theft figure for London alone was 18,218 in 2008, and it's been rising at a increase of well over 1000 a year plus a more recent large surge.

 

So it's going to be way past 20,000 a year now, and it should be borne in kind that a very large proportion of such thefts are not reported to the police. The true total could easily be double or much more than that.

As with most suggestions from Flecc, this is an eminently sensible and well thought through suggestion. In the last 10 years, me and my immediate family have suffered 7 bike thefts, including (and most especially) my beloved Torq.

My objection is based on a mixture of personal circumstance (selfish) and a hatred of officialdom, no matter how well intentioned.

I currently have to remember servicing, insurance, VED and MOT issues for 1 car and three motorbikes. If I had to add my 3 ebikes, my two pushbikes,my wife's ebike, and my kids pushbikes (as I assuredly would have to) a major inconvenience would transform into (another) part time job!

 

The idea is good, but I would have to vote against it.

 

Mr Selfish