Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#141

Post by vinay427 »

bhance wrote: post #87
vinay427 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many local police forces (towns, cities, universities, etc.) in the US have this type of register using the serial number but I doubt that it is centrally accessible. Instead, they usually provide a sticker with the police department name/logo that one applies on the frame to identify where it's from. This is certainly not an ideal solution; I would much rather have something like vehicle licensing but free, managed…

Nobody uses the NBR .., they're basically just selling stickers. When you dig into how many LE agencies use them, it's like ... six. Maybe even less. BikeIndex.org, though - which is mentioned in the article because that's what the batman is referencing - is totally open and has over 220+ national partners and over 70k bikes on file.

BikeIndex.org does seem to be especially prevalent on the west coast and definitely more widely used than the NBR, thanks for pointing that out.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#142

Post by ashitlerferad »

Retra wrote: post #102
ashitlerferad wrote: post #88

It is probably time to eliminate bikes from the list of things that can be considered "property". It should be illegal to lock up a bike or "own" one.

That sounds absurdly arbitrary.

I dream of a future without bike scarcity.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#143

Post by tlrobinson »

dpark wrote: post #95
mikepurvis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the GPS only needs to be active when the bike is a) moving, with b) the BLE phone connection absent. There are ultra low power motion sensor ICs that literally have a GPIO for "motion detected". Put that on the reset pin of your CC2541, and you'll be set for months of battery life.

I am still doubtful but frankly neither informed nor interested enough to debate it further. Maybe BLE is more impressive than I've been assuming.

There are a number of BLE beacons that last for a year on a single CR2302 battery. They only transmit for a fraction of a second at a time, then sleep for 2+ seconds.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#144

Post by s_q_b »

jerf wrote: post #84
Chronic51 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a good person. Me and a million others would have pressed charges. Are we bad people?

A morality in which someone steals something from you, and then also incurs moral obligations on you to address their mental health issues, isn't really scalable. If you want to help him and go above and beyond, more power to you and my blessings upon you, but it is a bonus, not an obligation.

You speak of "their mental health issues", as if psychiatric disorders are a purely personal burden.

I would no more refuse to help a mentally ill person than I would refuse to perform CPR on a person having a heart attack.

They didn't choose to be this way.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#145

Post by nmrm2 »

galdosdi wrote: post #90
nmrm2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially as the price approaches four digits, "what if this gets stolen?" has to be near the top of most potential buyers' list of concerns and probably chills sales to some degree. If you're spending that much on a bike then you're cycling regularly (communter and/or every weekend type). You're not going to ride a shitty bike if you're riding that often. Bikes aren't like cars -- a Corolla will get you from poin…

> You're not going to ride a shitty bike if you're riding that often. Yes and no. If you ride that much, you won't be riding a shitty bike. However, it is NOT the case that if you ride that much, riding a "non-shitty" bike means you ride an expensive bike. Bike manufacturers would love for you to think that you need to pay a lot to get a decent bike, but it isn't true. You can easily spend $50 to $300, trick out the…

Sure.

But the people with the skill-set and interest in doing that are going to do so anyways; I don't see how anti-theft tech would convince that type of person to shell out an extra few hundred for a bike. They would just buy something and install it themselves.

I just don't see the market for integrated anti-theft. Seems more like a custom component type of thing.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#146

Post by s_q_b »

PKop wrote: post #93
pavel_lishin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a good person, and you also shared an effective way of retrieving stolen property that I'd never thought about before.

Either the thief is prevented from committing further crimes, or more people will have their property stolen by him. There is a cost to refusing to press charges, paid by his future victims.

You're assuming the thief is a rational actor.

I assure you, he was not.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#147

Post by jerf »

s_q_b wrote: post #144
jerf wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A morality in which someone steals something from you, and then also incurs moral obligations on you to address their mental health issues, isn't really scalable. If you want to help him and go above and beyond, more power to you and my blessings upon you, but it is a bonus, not an obligation.

You speak of "their mental health issues", as if psychiatric disorders are a purely personal burden. I would no more refuse to help a mentally ill person than I would refuse to perform CPR on a person having a heart attack. They didn't choose to be this way.

It took longer for a virtue signaller to show up on this post than I expected. I expect most of them reached my second sentence and noticed I already pointed out that you had the option of helping them if you like, just not an obligation.

So are you saying pretty words to make yourself feel better while trying to put me down, or do you actually go and seek out mentally ill people to help out on some regular basis? And given how grand your words are, I'm not going to be satisfied with merely giving some people a buck every so often.

I fully expect those are empty words. I am not impressed. You are not virtuous for saying them.

I'll repeat: It makes no moral sense for someone committing a crime against you to create obligations on you. It is a bonus above and beyond what you are obligated to if you help them.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#148

Post by s_q_b »

jerf wrote: post #147
s_q_b wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You speak of "their mental health issues", as if psychiatric disorders are a purely personal burden. I would no more refuse to help a mentally ill person than I would refuse to perform CPR on a person having a heart attack. They didn't choose to be this way.

It took longer for a virtue signaller to show up on this post than I expected. I expect most of them reached my second sentence and noticed I already pointed out that you had the option of helping them if you like, just not an obligation. So are you saying pretty words to make yourself feel better while trying to put me down, or do you actually go and seek out mentally ill people to help out on some regular basis? An…

There was no obligation to me, just an opportunity to help.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is a good secular rule as well as religious.

I believe we'd be better off as a society if more people simply helped, as best they can, when the situation presents itself.

But you're not obligated to help, in my view, or especially not to seek out opportunities to help.

I suppose I just don't see it as an imposed obligation, but a chance for charity, even a little bit.

As far as morality goes:

Theological: Failure to help is a sin of omission, as it violates the Golden Rule. (Christian version, but there are many other examples in the major religions.)

Political: Locking someone up with other criminals creates a greater cost to society than psychiatric treatment.

Secular: Unreciprocated generosity relieves suffering. It can also lead to an improvement in reputation.

We could discuss each moral foundation in detail, from St. Augustine to Singer if you'd like.

As for my personal experience with mental illness:

I was able to convinve my cousin, who was in full blown psychosis, to get to a hospital (way harder than it sounds.)

I spent most of my childhood helping to care for my uncle, both physically and mentally disabled.

Also, I do volunteer work regularly for the homeless, many if not most of whom are mentally ill, in my home city of Washington.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#149

Post by galdosdi »

nmrm2 wrote: post #145
galdosdi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're not going to ride a shitty bike if you're riding that often. Yes and no. If you ride that much, you won't be riding a shitty bike. However, it is NOT the case that if you ride that much, riding a "non-shitty" bike means you ride an expensive bike. Bike manufacturers would love for you to think that you need to pay a lot to get a decent bike, but it isn't true. You can easily spend $50 to $300, trick out the…

Sure. But the people with the skill-set and interest in doing that are going to do so anyways; I don't see how anti-theft tech would convince that type of person to shell out an extra few hundred for a bike. They would just buy something and install it themselves. I just don't see the market for integrated anti-theft. Seems more like a custom component type of thing.

I'd go further than that -- riding a cheap bike with a heavy U lock makes theft so rare in most places that it's not worth wasting any further time/money on the problem.

Re: Seattle vigilante reuniting stolen bikes with their owners

#150

Post by PKop »

s_q_b wrote: post #146
PKop wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either the thief is prevented from committing further crimes, or more people will have their property stolen by him. There is a cost to refusing to press charges, paid by his future victims.

You're assuming the thief is a rational actor. I assure you, he was not.

I'm describing what will happen. Motives are irrelevant to the point I was making.
Post reply on HN