If you park it next to more expensive bikes then not as likely, but still quite likely. The combo lock is a waste of time though might deter casual front wheel theft, maybe.

Which kryptonite lock do you have? They make sold secure gold, silver and bronze locks. The yellow New York range are really the only "london proof" ones, but then we're talking about paying more for your locks than the bike's worth.

Just say which station it is, West London is pretty broad. My partner left her bike locked next to Euston tap with a standard D lock and it took about 4 months for it to get nicked.

If you're working days, you're probably fine. You're still rolling the dice any time you leave a bike locked in London, but odds would be quite low.

Ignore any claims Kryptonite make about their D-locks offering amazing everything-proof protection. Those guarantees apply to the lock itself, which is too small to go around both the bike and whatever you're locking it to, in most cases. You'll have to use the cable, and the guarantees don't apply to the cable because any fucker can snip through a cable. If there are proper bike racks, you might be okay, but do not be seduced by their lies if you're going to lock the bike to a lamppost or something.

Does your bike have pannier bags or anything like that? Those can be removed and then suddenly your bike is unrecognisable, which might be why I have had two bikes stolen in the past five years like that.

Epoxy a bunch of shit to the frame and spray it garish colours.

D-Lock goes through the frame and the thing you're attaching it too.
Make sure the thing that you attach it to is strong and secure.
Cable locks are a bit of protection against opportunists stealing your wheels, but they can also be used to fill in any empty space between the d-lock and the frame as this makes it harder to get tools in there.

It's very unlikely to get nicked. A kryptonite d-lock can be broken by someone with the right tools, but the thieves with the tools are targeting specific bikes they know have value like bromptons.

If you want ultimate security, this company makes the very best chains you can get, but obviously you have the weight and bulk of having to carry a chain around. And these chains are worth as much as your bike anyway.
The 11mm isn't too heavy if you have a short one. I've got a 13mm and for any pushbike is the most security you could ever ask for. Thicker chains are for motorbikes, and they sell their 22mm chains to the MOD.
https://securityforbikes.com/products.php?cat=Medium+Security+Chain+and+Lock+Deals

>The bike itself is a 10 year old hybrid only worth £~150 these days

Still worth it for the average heroin addict looking to flip it for the next few hits.

When I was at uni, my 20 year old racing bike got nicked over night from a bike stand behind the student hall building. My D lock which they left behind had bolt cutter marks on it. There was no CCTV, which went some way explaining why they nicked two other bikes from there that night. All of which had some form of lock on them. Manchester apparently had a thriving illegal bicycle trade back in the day; one of my mates bought a bike off a bloke once for 100 quid, and a few weeks later at a party, some lad told him that that was his bike, and it turned out that it got stolen from him just days before my friend bought it. Police couldn't nick the seller because he was long gone by then.

>>445133
CCTV is a lie. It's there, but the police won't even bother looking at it unless you can promise them in advance that the bike thief walks right up to the camera, looks right into it from a foot away, and also holds up his passport right next to him where his face is visible. Also, you need to tell them the exact time that he does this or they still won't look at it. Never, ever be afraid of being caught on CCTV; that's what having bikes stolen has taught me.

I'm in Manchester too, by the way. One of my bikes was stolen in full view of six different security cameras in Fallowfield. The police are very sympathetic and very good at making you think they'll do something, even as they openly tell you they don't give a shit and won't investigate it.

>>445134

Can't you request the footage from a CCTV camera owner via FOI/data protection? I've found police will sometimes do their job if you bring everything they need to their desk.

>>445128
I've got the Original Keeper Standard, which is Bronze. I think I signed up to their ATPO which means they pay for my bike if it's nicked.

>>445129
Fine, Syon Lane . Yeah I only work within business hours. There is CCTV and it's only 2 platforms.

>>445130
No panniers

>>445132
Thanks for the info

>>445136
>which means they pay for my bike if it's nicked
I wouldn't hold your breath on that.

I must be the luckiest twat alive because the police actually recovered my stolen bike from the description I gave them. They said they were visiting an address on an unrelated incident, found a shitload of bikes hidden in the back, and marked them all as stolen.

On the day I came back after five minutes to find it gone it was secured with a cable only, so I use D-locks exclusively now.

>>445134

Well this was in the late 90s/early 2000s, when police still showed some commitment, and perhaps a bit of idealism, in using CCTV as a crime fighting tool. But it was also a time when there weren't as many CCTV cameras around as there are today.

I've got a cross country bike now, family heirloom which I got for free but which was 1500 quid when it was bought fifteen years ago. I keep it locked away in the basement at all times, and only use it for sport, or for brief errands into town, but I always make sure I leave it in a busy public place with loads of people where nobody will dare put a bolt cutter to my £80 D lock and nick it.

>>445146
>a busy public place with loads of people where nobody will dare put a bolt cutter to my £80 D lock and nick it
Dream on.

What makes this theft unusual is that somebody cared enough to attempt to intervene. Usually people will ignore it.

I once spent at least half an hour on a busy street cutting through my own thick metal cable lock with a wood saw after the key stopped working. I got a few dirty looks and comments. One guy was a bit aggressive and threatening insisting I was thief but declined to call the police when I challenged him to. One guy with a family stopped and asked what I was doing. I told him it was mine and showed him I had a key that fit inside the lock. That was credible enough for him to go home and fetch me a better tool.

A thief would be in and out in seconds.

There are even street markets in London where people sell bikes stolen earlier that week.

>>445149

That's really fucking depressing.

>>445149

Broken Britain.

But like I said, I mostly use my bike for sport. i.e. physically exhausting rides along the rivers and canals here. And when I do ride into the city centre, I keep it brief so that a thief shouldn't normally have the time to spot my bike, case the surroundings and then somehow cut the lock.

I've got an Abus Granite lock, which was around 80 quid, and is widely regarded as a very good choice.

From what you describe though, in your situation, there were still people watching and with just a smidgen more determination probably wouldn't have let you get away with nicking your own bike.

Also, I like to call people on their bluffs. If somebody told me to call the police, I'd get my phone out and start dialling. Exactly because people are cunts and think that'll shut you up.

>>445149
Mirth, what the fuck did that teenager threaten the intervener with? A Thermos?

>>445154
Uhhh, an angle grinder that was turned on.

>>445155
Most people have very few angles, far more rounded edges, as such there was nothing to fear.

>>445159

Edgelord grinders are still a bit niche. Although badly needed.

>>445176

Your assumption that they're immigrants is definitely racist.

>>445179

The only one of them with their face and hands not covered or otherwise obscured by the shit camera quality, is white.

>>445179

>black-skinned Somali-looking lad

I'm curious what exactly is Somali looking about him? Not wishing to show my cultural ignorance here, but they do tend to have black skin round those parts, and frankly they all look more or less the same to me. They could be from anywhere between Mauritania and Mali and I'd be none the wiser.

Or, you know, Deptford.

>>445181

Hush, didn't you see what he said? He's not racist but he's also okay with the fact that he's racist. Anyone calling him racist for the racist things he says is just trying to bully him and isn't just stating an observed fact.

>>445183

I know a lovely biomedical scientist called John (it's not really John, it's just that we wouldn't be able to pronounce his real one with all the clicks and whistles in). Black as a zebra's ballbag, accent thicker than your mum's beef curtains, can't tell a word he says. But he's a credit to whatever tribe he came from, top bloke.

>>445181
Somalis look like aliens they have big craniums and weak jaws, very skinny, disproportionately large head. They look very different from your Nigerians and your Jamaicans.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>445183

That's enough out of you for now, Women's Institute lad.

>>445189

>Women's Institute

Mirth. English Defence League, then.

>>445185
Aliens? Unfair, we're all humans mate.

Though Somalians are the ones with big cheeks and sticky-out teeth which gives them an appearance I think resembles some kind of rodent. Especially when wearing pair of whale skin breeches. It's not necessarily unattractive, but those are their distinguishing features.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>445191

I don't know, mate. Never ends well to label ethnicities with such negative stereotypes.

Some very horrible, creepy, fucking weirdos on this website.

>>445193
I think he got lost on his way to the Other Place, Stormfront, or the Daily Mail comments section.

>>445193
I'd have thought the sexual harassment thread was testament to that.

>>445193
Some people are fucked up. We're not all like them.

You know how a tortoise can end up developing shell abnormalities if they're not given the right diet, usually not discovering there's an issue until it's too late? I bet that's what's happened to a lot of Somalians; the malnutrition gives them the ol' alien noggin.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>445192
Agreed. If you must be insensitive enough to make animal comparisons, at least compare them to something cute and lovable like a doe or a chipmunk.

>>445198
It’s a malnourished child.

>>445199
Chipmunks are rodents you racist. Banned for a week.

>>445192
Certainly some people take it too far, but we can stereotype to some distance - you could quite accurately distinguish an ethnic Japanese person from an ethnic Swedish person and state generic features that are majority common/almost absent in one or the other.

What's the 'cut off'? Do we have to be clear that "X tend to have Y feature, but not exclusively"? Stuff like "Somalians are the ones with big cheeks and sticky-out teeth" does seem a bit rude, probably because it's so specific and suggests that 1/5 of every Somali face is the same. Also because I've just confirmed that there's no such word as 'Somalian', it's Somali.

>>445193
You've probably exchanged useful advice with some of them on here before. It's a funny old world. That said since the overall tone of the site is quite consistent, these people tend to either move on to whiter pastures, or avoid getting banned and just post on safe topics.

>>445203
>What's the 'cut off'?
>... does seem a bit rude

Not meaning to be glib here, but I think you've touched on the answer yourself. It's one thing to neutrally describe the features have when they're from different places, but it's quite another depending on context, the nature of the description, the humanity you're ascribing to your subject, etc..

"Alien", especially when you pair it with a picture of a child who clearly may not be in the best situation, is quite a nasty combination of dehumanising and punching down in terms of economic status. There's also the additional layer of race on top of that.

I'm not saying descriptions always have to be flattering, and even jokes like this can work (e.g. if you're satirising blatant bigotry, or something), but the context has to be there. In this case it's come off as genuinely eugenicist.

I'm going to try not to be offensive but I do consider it worth the risk: I genuinely agree that you can recognise, visually, when someone is from the Horn of Africa. Both Ethiopians and Somalians have a very distinct appearance, much like how if you saw five Japanese people and five Korean people, you could identify which nationality each one was, or maybe 8/10 at the worst. I just want to make that clear, because if I'm watching Anthony Joshua's next boxing match, and Mo Farah comes out instead of AJ, I will know something is up. You won't fool me. I can spot these things.

I think it's quite bloody easy to not mock and chide people for their looks based on their ethnicity or race, or if they're a severely malnourished child. At least, of course, if we're assuming everyone involved in the discussion is over the age of 15, which I intend to.

It's the childishness and the nastiness that gets me about most of you lot. A cacophony of saddos, that's the only way to describe how most discussions go on here these days. There's an overwhelming commitment to being as infantile and mean-spirited as possible, about anything half-way serious that turns my stomach and should embarrass everyone, both actors and observers. I don't know how it happened, but it has.

>It's the childishness and the nastiness that gets me about most of you lot. A cacophony of saddos, that's the only way to describe how most discussions go on here these days. There's an overwhelming commitment to being as infantile and mean-spirited as possible, about anything half-way serious that turns my stomach and should embarrass everyone, both actors and observers. I don't know how it happened, but it has.

You should check the archives, refresh your memory. There used to be a lot more of this sort of stuff. I don't know if you're roleplaying or if you genuinely don't remember, but this is an imageboard derived from britchan. That's why we have /emo/, it's the only 'safe space' on the board, you can and should get banned for engaging in a cuntoff there. But the rest of it is just a mostly uncensored imageboard where only illegal stuff and stormfront stuff is right out.

This is where I can be a childish saddo, because it has fuck all impact on the real world. In life I have to be responsible and decent and while I like that, I also like finding creative ways to say horrible things where it won't hurt the people I'm insulting, because they'll never hear of it.

>>445205

You're not fundamentally wrong, in that Africa does have a multitude of distinct ethnicities in the same way that there are a good few distinct white ethnicities in Europe. I'm not an expert on African studies, but I would imagine that you can make out differences in appearance between members of different African peoples, tribes, and ethnicities. In much the same way that you will also be able to tell a person from Scandinavia from a person from southern Italy. And a Polish lad from somebody from Andalucia.

The problem isn't that these differences exist, which they do, but that ethnic and race distinctions throughout history have always been used to assume or declare the superiority of one ethnicity over another. With all the consequences.

Genetically, i.e. when you compare genomes side by side between different ethnicities, those differences are so minute that geneticists will tell you that the word "race" doesn't even apply to humans in a scientifically correct sense. Most dog breeds show more genetic variation between each other than for example a blonde blue-eyed person from northern Scandinavia and a black person from sub-Saharan Africa.

Worth keeping in mind the next time somebody talks about "them darkies".

>>445206
>It's the childishness and the nastiness that gets me about most of you lot. A cacophony of saddos, that's the only way to describe how most discussions go on here these days. There's an overwhelming commitment to being as infantile and mean-spirited as possible, about anything half-way serious that turns my stomach and should embarrass everyone, both actors and observers. I don't know how it happened, but it has.

I think it's great that you have the courage to call this stuff out when you see it. Really speaks the truth that will put a stop to the Tories once and for all. Tell you what, I've got a bottle of cider up in my room, how about we go talk about it some more and I'll make you feel real special.

You fucking woman.

>>445211
>Genetically, i.e. when you compare genomes side by side between different ethnicities, those differences are so minute that geneticists will tell you that the word "race" doesn't even apply to humans in a scientifically correct sense. Most dog breeds show more genetic variation between each other than for example a blonde blue-eyed person from northern Scandinavia and a black person from sub-Saharan Africa.

This is gross oversimplification for political reasons and makes you look like a idiot parroting a narrative. Genetically you're not all that different from a houseplant, minute differences do matter and as you yourself recognise they're self-evident. It's also perfectly possible to group people based on characteristics and ARE Dark Destroyer is proud of his skin tone.

What otherplacers miss is that intelligence is really complicated both because it's largely beyond genetics but also data in itself is chaotic in how it's expressed. And so I wouldn't trust any of you fuckers with my bike seat.

It's not fucking hard lads.

Yes, you can say that certain races have certain features to them. Just don't be a dickhead about it. Really what more needs to be said?

>>445213
>Just don't be a dickhead about it.
But it makes me laugh.

I just want to say that the best couple of responses yesterday were entirely non-racist, but in a thoroughly Bernard Manning-esque fashion.

You all need to up your game and stop being such plonkers. You don't have to be a sanctimonious tart about it, just recognise that while humans come in all different shapes and sizes, we are all the same sort of overgrown hairless monkey ultimately.

>>445216
>just recognise that while humans come in all different shapes and sizes

My girlfriend worked for the council and had to undertake equality training. The course was ran by a black man and he asked everyone in the room to describe his appearance and nobody mentioned that he was black despite that being the first thing you'd notice about him; they all said things like he was tall or had a nice smile instead. He had to point out to them, a room full of adults, that he is a black man and it isn't offensive to notice this.

It seems to be a very white Western thing to a) get offended on behalf of others who wouldn't actually get offended and b) being overly concerned with whether things appear offensive, with this more important than whether they actually are offensive or not. The latest one I've seen in people infested with these mind mindworms is them tying themselves in knots trying to compliment someone for losing weight and getting in shape; they are so worried they'll be accused of being fatphobic against how the person used to look.

>>445217
>compliment someone for losing weight and getting in shape
This is actually something you genuinely shouldn't do and not because of fatphobia. I forget the precise reasons but it's something to do with triggers and eating disorders.

>>445217
That's fine but if you join in a conversation with someone who is actually overtly being racist to add a bunch of shit about how a particular nationality look like rodents then you're not harmlessly noting someone is black, you're being a stupid cunt.

>>445218
That sounds like the kind of bollocks that the Health At Every Size movement would peddle.

>>445218

If a compliment gets you back into a disorder, you have not beaten the disorder.

>>445222

How does that change what people should or shouldn't say to you?

>>445218
Nah come on, is the proportion of people who lose weight compared to those who lose weight through eating disorders really that significant? Especially considering you can't compliment someone for losing weight if you've not met them before. This just sounds like something repeated on rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk, based on the assumption that everyone is fragile and lacks any sort of social tact or ability to read context whatsoever. "This hurt someone once so no-one should ever do it".

Or do we need to approach this from a utilitarian standpoint? Is the success of those spurred on by compliments on their weight loss worth more than the suffering of those who go for the old up-chuck after every grain of rice?

>>445223
Because we need to foster a trusting society where people give each other the benefit of the doubt and take each other in good faith so as to promote social cohesion and unity. But because of fucking knobheads who repeatedly insist that everyone should be constantly on the lookout for potentially offensive things just in case some randomer at some point in history may have ever felt somewhat singled out for any particular reason, real or imagined, we are now in a position where people are on edge, scared, angry, easily offended, triggered, rustled, despite this being the safest and most progressive time to be alive ever, without a doubt, categorically.

It's bollocks. It's a race to the bottom and if you compare the way people behave on the internet to the way they behave in real life, it seems quite clear that it has a hugely damaging effect on discourse - see, all social media. All of it.

>>445219
Mate, he can call him a chipmunk toothed martian if he wants, it hurts absolutely no-one. If it hurts you, that's because you're a moron.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>445225

"I can be racist because it makes me laugh. Only stupid people get upset by it". The problem with this is that it's equally valid as a reason to ban you.

>>445212

>This is gross oversimplification for political reasons and makes you look like a idiot parroting a narrative. Genetically you're not all that different from a houseplant, minute differences do matter and as you yourself recognise they're self-evident.

I wonder who's really parrotting here, rightwinglad. Do you even understand the concept of genetic variance?

Scientists are even studying fruit flies due to their genetic similarity to humans, but that isn't the point. At all. Your cousin isn't a fruit fly, is he.

All life on Earth is related, I don't think anybody will argue against that. But you will no doubt agree that two brothers are more closely related to each other than they are to a random person on the other side of the globe. And the same is true for humans in general. Humans as such of all skin colours and ethnicities are more closely related to each other than different dog breeds tend to be among themselves. In other words, a Pinscher will be more genetically different from a St. Bernard than a white English person from a Filipino.

Scientists speculate that humans are that genetically homogenous because there may have been a near-extinction event in the last Ice Age, or at some point even before that. One possible explanation is the Mt. Toba supervolcano eruption ca. 70,000 BC, which would have caused a sudden sharp drop in global temperatures and warm season length of a magnitude that is unmatched in more recent human history, and could have brought paleolithic human hunter-gatherer cultures to the brink of extinction. It is assumed that at some point, there were only a few thousand members of the entire species of Homo Sapien left on Earth, and the number of breeding pairs, i.e. pairs of adult, reproduction-age males and females, may have been as low as a few hundred.

So in that sense, even though we've come a long way in ethnic diversity in the last 70,000 years, colour really is only skin deep, and any kind of dolphin rape is really the most daft concept that humankind has ever come up with. You could say, what's wrong with pointing out that ethnicities can differ from each other greatly in appearance, but again, throughout human history, that has been a slippery slope.

>>445207
>You should check the archives, refresh your memory. There used to be a lot more of this sort of stuff.

That everyone else grew up and you haven't isn't really the argument you think it is.

>>445227
>You could say, what's wrong with pointing out that ethnicities can differ from each other greatly in appearance, but again, throughout human history, that has been a slippery slope.

Just to clarify, are you saying we shouldn't point out different ethnic features full stop? Because that idea is baffling to me. There is absolutely a stereotypical Somali set of features. It isn't racist to point out they exist and I'm not emulating the third Reich by doing so. Just don't be racist about it.

>>445229

In the context where someone is being explicitly racist, coming in and adding "Yes, they look like aliens/rodents" is not innocently "pointing out different ethnic features". It's just joining in with someone being explicitly racist.

>>445226
Must be a hard life being a modlad and after all that hard work on the discord.

>>445227
What are you gibbering about. Colour isn't skin deep when you consider morphology and you're downplaying the diversity of humanity by comparing us to dogs who, incidentally, are also genetically subject to minute differences.

Can you group people into ethnicities? Yes.
Can you group these ethnicities into broader super-groups? Yes.

You're just getting mad at the cataloguing. Despite this having beneficial uses such as identifying populations more prone to given diseases.

>Your cousin isn't a fruit fly, is he.

The fact that you sound like a critic of Darwin should give you pause for thought here.

>>445232
>You're just getting mad at the cataloguing. Despite this having beneficial uses such as identifying populations more prone to given diseases.

As has been pointed out multiple times in the thread, there's a difference between distinguishing medically useful phenotypes, or even benignly pointing out physical features among people from a specific place, and "people from this country look like aliens, here is a picture of a possibly impoverished child to prove it".

Do you need this difference explained to you?

>>445233
You're the one talking about slopes m80

>>445128
>Which kryptonite lock do you have? They make sold secure gold, silver and bronze locks. The yellow New York range are really the only "london proof" ones, but then we're talking about paying more for your locks than the bike's worth.

I've heard that New Yorkers use their expensive locks as waist bound fashion statement rather than as intended, for this very reason.

>>445223

How do you know what people should or should not say to me?

>>445233

>As has been pointed out multiple times in the thread, there's a difference between distinguishing medically useful phenotypes, or even benignly pointing out physical features among people from a specific place, and "people from this country look like aliens, here is a picture of a possibly impoverished child to prove it".

Exactly.

I'm not always without exception a fan of "Some racists say X, therefore X is dolphin rape, and everybody who says X is a racist", but it's always worth remembering that you need to tread carefully around the issue of what are held to be distinctive physical features of an ethnic group. Saying that people of a certain ethnicity look like aliens is definitely overstepping more than one line. I don't see how you can possibly defend that as a reasonable idea.

>>445248
>Saying that people of a certain ethnicity look like aliens is definitely overstepping more than one line. I don't see how you can possibly defend that as a reasonable idea.

Facts and opinion.

>>445250

Explain how visual comparison to entirely undiscovered extra-terrestrial life can be factual.

>>445251

>entirely undiscovered extra-terrestrial life

That is evidently just your opinion.

>>445251

So is it safer at the train station or on the high st on one of those massive bicycle racks?

>>445291

The safest place to park your bike is next to a nicer bike with a worse lock.

The only bicycle locks that will actually stop a half-serious thief are the Kryptonite New York Fahgettaboudit Mini and the Abus Granit X-plus Mini 54. They're genuinely a pain in the arse to get open. Anything else can be popped open in about 15 seconds with a pair of long-handled bolt cutters or a bottle jack.

Some of the beefier motorbike chains will stop a professional thief, but they're hugely expensive and impractically heavy. Cable locks and folding locks are useless, chain locks are surprisingly easy to cut (they give the thief too much room to manoeuvre) and D-locks can only really be trusted if they've got at least a 13mm case-hardened shackle and they're just barely big enough to fit around the bike and post.

Fortunately you don't need to make your bike impossible to steal, just less attractive than the available alternatives. If there are two bikes on the same stand of similar value, a thief will go for the one with the worse lock. If there are two bikes on the same stand with equally good locks, a thief will go for the one with that is easiest to sell.

Making your bike harder to sell at a reasonable price is just as valuable as getting a better lock. Scrape off the decals, file off the brand names on the components, give the frame a really ugly re-spray with a rattle can. If you make your bike less attractive to a random bloke in a pub, you make it less attractive to a thief.