Immobilise, BikeRevolution, CTC & Manufactures.All Together?

[JKT]

I am a new CTC member (Finally!) I also work for a bike manufacture that plan to enter the UK market very soon oh, and I hate bike thieves.


Now correct me if I am wrong, but I am only aware of two services available in the UK that try to make life harder for thieves: immobilise.com (started in 2003) and a new service called BikeRevolution.org.


This is what I understand so far about these two services:

Immobilise: Installs a sticker in your frame in the form of a huge number, so when your bike is stolen or lost and ends up in the hands of the police they can track you down and give it back. Only the police knows who registered the bike.

BikeRevolution: You register like a social network, you setup a profile for your bike(s), you buy a sticker in the form of a Pulse ID that you can scan with your phone and it tells you if its stolen (but I don't think they are connected to the police?)


Now, am I correct in assuming this:

1) The owner has to register and then add a sticker to their bike
2) They dont know if the person that registers is the legitimate owner of the bike
3) This stickers can be removed/covered
4) The sticker can becomes useless if 1 number or barcode is missing.
5) Only a very small portion of bikes are tagged (because of 1,3 & 4)

Here is our very rough idea of how we can make all these problems disappear, & we need you to tear it apart, and tell us how to make it better:

Manufactures add a unique barcode between the paint and the lacquer (in exactly the same place, solves 3-4,no one likes a scratched bike!), this barcode, when scanned with a mobile phone will take you to the bike owners profile, in this profile you will see a phone number, to either 1)the owner of the bike 2)the manufacture (the user can choose) simple?

But you said people hate to register things! how do you get them to register?
- When you buy a new bicycle, you register your guarantee, they can both be connected, solving 1&5. The reason this only works with new bikes is because on used bikes 2,3,4 can never be solved with used bikes, please prove us wrong! But also be constructive, if you think your comment can help, please post it! if not you can email me at: juan@pacific-cycles.com and I will answer anything you want (almost)

[Lawrie9]

Sounds like a good idea, a bar code or chip imbedded in the bike frame. My belief is that every single bike will be made with its own dna profile which will make them almost imposible to steal in the future.

[Cunobelin]

Immobilise is a permanent plug fitted into the seat tube that is read by the Police regardless of the sticker being removed or not.

[JKT]

Sounds like a good idea, a bar code or chip imbedded in the bike frame. My belief is that every single bike will be made with its own dna profile which will make them almost imposible to steal in the future.

Exactly,

Immobilise is a permanent plug fitted into the seat tube that is read by the Police regardless of the sticker being removed or not.

That is quite handy,but there is still 4 issues to be resolved:


1) Only the police can check who the owner of the bike is
2) The bike has to be found by the police in order to be returned.
3) If it pops up on ebay or gumtree you dont know if its tagged
4) Very few people tag their bikes.

Thanks

[CREPELLO]

Yeah, I can see it makes sense for a bar code type of sticker that anyone can read, without the need for them widget readers the police have.

If the scheme was effective, it could have an impact on the stolen bikes market. But could pro-crim's get around it? If they got access to the data base, could they make and embed their own stickers. Some sort of holographic sticker, which would be difficult to reproduce?

Would it exclude all those with non tagged bikes at present. It would be a shame if the scheme couldn't be adopted retrospectively and would limit it's impact. Again, the holographic sticker comes to mind. If bonded on the frame, could removal result in damaged paintwork? (A good thing! A sign that the bike is dodgy).

A side related issue that I'd be concerned about is that if such a scheme proved effective, it could get some people and politicians thinking that the tag could be effectively become a tax disc if the technology was commandeered by government

What is the view of the bike industry to bike theft? I imagine that at some level they see it as paying for more bikes and so more profit.

[CJ]

Immobilise is a permanent plug fitted into the seat tube that is read by the Police regardless of the sticker being removed or not.

Datatag is another similar thing, with a longer track record AFAIK and also used on other kinds of goods, so the Police are more likely to have a scanner that'll pick it up.

[JKT]

If the scheme was effective, it could have an impact on the stolen bikes market. But could pro-crim's get around it? If they got access to the data base, could they make and embed their own stickers. Some sort of holographic sticker, which would be difficult to reproduce?

This could be impossible, unless they hacked the website and changed the bike status to "Not Stolen" the QR code would direct the bikes profile, here is an example, if you take your mobile phone off, it will take you to the forum:

Would it exclude all those with non tagged bikes at present. It would be a shame if the scheme couldn't be adopted retrospectively and would limit it's impact. Again, the holographic sticker comes to mind. If bonded on the frame, could removal result in damaged paintwork? (A good thing! A sign that the bike is dodgy).

Yes, good point, because its painted into the frame it would only affect new bikes, I am not aware of any stickers that are strong enough to damage paintwork visibly? and if it does, would you really like to stick it to your bike?

A side related issue that I'd be concerned about is that if such a scheme proved effective, it could get some people and politicians thinking that the tag could be effectively become a tax disc if the technology was commandeered by government

Great outside the box thinking here, I am glad I posted, will give this point some thought and get back to you.

What is the view of the bike industry to bike theft? I imagine that at some level they see it as paying for more bikes and so more profit.

I cant speak for other bicycle manufactures, but we are small company specialised in very niche kind of bikes, and we like to know that our customers keep them for life, stolen bikes make us sad. (and this is why we are here trying to look for a solution)

Datatag is another similar thing, with a longer track record AFAIK and also used on other kinds of goods, so the Police are more likely to have a scanner that'll pick it up.

Thanks for making us aware! I will look into it, they seem to work in a similar way, Your bike gets stolen>thief doesnt like it> police finds it> Police finds you.

I am going to email BikeRevolution, I think we could work together to mix their security with our manufacture guarantee (fingerprint idea) we could embed every bike we sell with one of their codes

[snibgo]

Hmm. A barcode on my bike that any scrote can point a mobile phone at, and instantly see my name and address? No thanks.

[Vorpal]

What about SmartWater?

http://www.smartwater.com/Home.aspx

I'm not associated with them, but began using it a few years ago because an insurance company offered reduced rates with its use.

[JKT]

Hmm. A barcode on my bike that any scrote can point a mobile phone at, and instantly see my name and address? No thanks.

No one said anything about name and address. Just out of curiosity, are you called Allan?

when scanned with a mobile phone will take you to the bike owners profile, in this profile you will see a phone number, to either 1)the owner of the bike 2)the manufacture (the user can choose) simple?

What about SmartWater?

<span><a class="linkclass" href="http://www.smartwater.com/Home.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.smartwater.com/Home.aspx</a></span>

I'm not associated with them, but began using it a few years ago because an insurance company offered reduced rates with its use.

Thanks Vorpal! very helpful, will build a pro/cons table on each one

[snibgo]

Dunno where I got "name and address" from, sorry. Just phone number would be okay.

"Allan"? Nearly.

[CREPELLO]

Would it exclude all those with non tagged bikes at present. It would be a shame if the scheme couldn't be adopted retrospectively and would limit it's impact. Again, the holographic sticker comes to mind. If bonded on the frame, could removal result in damaged paintwork? (A good thing! A sign that the bike is dodgy).

Yes, good point, because its painted into the frame it would only affect new bikes, I am not aware of any stickers that are strong enough to damage paintwork visibly? and if it does, would you really like to stick it to your bike?

Attaching the sticker could be done with an effective epoxy glue bond. It's just that that way, older bikes can be retrospectively fitted. The sticker behind lacquer method won't really work with this will it? The whole concept still won't overcome theft by those who are prepared to repaint a bike. But how about if the data plate was bonded to the frame material. Oh hang on, that's been done for eon's as the frame number. Is there not a way of updating the frame number concept? It's stamped into the frame, after all.

Essentially, what I like about your concept is the idea of visibility, but it must somehow be as permanent as is possible. Now Datatag use stickers which can be seen (and scraped off, tho the tag widget remains). And yet the thief could easily find out where the widget is an remove it. It doesn't seem an effective deterent against a determined theif in possecion of an expensive bike. Datatag do provide a stencil to etch the bikes code into various parts though; the idea being that every major part is identifiable.

Steel frames could have a plate welded/brazed on. Could alu? And what about carbon - bonded with all that epoxy glue they use to build them!

[MuirSR]

"Immobilise, BikeRevolution, CTC & Manufacturers.All Together?"

"All Together" is what's needed, but that's not what I see here!

What this thread is about is a single bicycle manufacturer devising a new scheme for marking its cycles. This is well-intentioned, but, in my opinion, it's not helpful. Assuming it works, it creates yet another database containing a subset of all bicycles, in this case, the subset is those bicycles produced by a particular manufacturer. This gives another database that people have to know about and be able to search.

Perhaps, somewhere or other, there is a single database of all bicycles reported as stolen. If there is, then it doesn't particularly matter if Immobilise, BikeRevoultion, BikeRegister, Pacific Cycles, et al, have their own databases of cycles as long as any bicycle reported to them as stolen causes this single database of stolen cycles to be updated with the details of the bike and its identifiers. The other requirement is that this single database should be "well-known" and freely interrogatable by the public.

That does NOT mean the public can see all the information about the cycle! Just about the only thing members of the public would be able to see, having entered, say, a frame number, would be the status of the cycle with respect to theft: either it's recorded as stolen (ie on the databse), or its not recorded stolen (no entry on this database). That's all the public can see on BikeRegister's system.

I suspect this single database needs to be international, because there are stories of bikes stolen in one country turning up in another.

If the various authorities and manufacturers worked together to create such a data base, I think that would be a big step forward.

The next thing is the identifier (or identifiers) put on the bike. The frame number is a start, but I have a bike from a reputable manufacturer with a frame number "431" (try it on BikeRegister -- you enter the frame number in the box at the bottom of the page). This is laughable. What this tells me is the manufacturers don't see the frame number as an identifier, as such, and therefore haven't seen any need to get together to devise a scheme governing the frame number space, to ensure every manufacturer produces a unique frame number on every bike it produces.

Just as it's not helpful for individuals or manufacturers to create new databases of bicycles (of stolen bicycles, to be accurate), it's not helpful for them to come up with new schemes for marking cycles if that new scheme requires some specialist piece of equipment for it to work. For example, "smart water" may be a very clever thing, but who's able to detect it? The police force in some foreign country where the stolen bike gets shipped? Can my local police detect it?

If a human being can read an identifier attached to a cycle, and is able to use it to query a database of stolen bikes, then I don't care what technology that identifier uses or how the system works, or whether a manufacturer comes up with a new scheme.

[snibgo]

+1 wot Stephen says.

A reasonable way forwards might be to persuade frame-makers to:

(a) ensure their stamped frame numbers are unique within that manufacturer;

(b) ensure frame numbers are unique across all manufacturers.

To get (b), every frame-maker would need a unique name or code. It might work like internet domain names. In fact, as most makers probably have a domain, they could be used, although they tend to be quite long.

[Vorpal]

It took an ISO standard to get car manufacturers to do that.