[queenkjuul]

This is ridiculous. Bike thieves are prosecuted here, and parts theft is nowhere near as common as you're implying. Nobody I know here (Chicago) has ever really had a problem with it (bikes entirely being stolen, yeah that happens, but CPD is absolutely not refusing to investigate someone on account of being homeless, that's patently absurd)

[pandaman]

So you are arguing that people you know only had their whole bikes stolen and not wheels/saddles/etc ? I don't think it's a good argument, tbqh. Even if the people you know made a meaningful sample of Chicago population (they don't) they still get bikes stolen and it still means the law is not enforced well enough.

And CPD can investigate all they want, CPD, like any other police department, cannot put people in prison. The DA has to press charges and prosecute in the court, which won't happen with any DA in any major city against homeless (otherwise all homeless would have been already in prison).

[queenkjuul]

No, nobody I know has had their bike stolen. I am acknowledging that bikes are sometimes stolen. CPD has a bike registry and does actively investigate bike theft.

And no, the DA does not withhold prosecution for theft based on ones housing status.

(Since you seem unaware: being homeless is not illegal)

[pandaman]

>No, nobody I know has had their bike stolen. I am acknowledging that bikes are sometimes stolen.

This argument makes even less sense then. You proclaim that stealing bike parts is an absurd idea and never happens based on the people you know, yet now you say that you don't know any people whose bike was stolen? If you believe things that don't happen to people you know are absurd and don't happen, then should not you be consistent and believe that bikes don't get stolen? Or, if you admit that bikes get stolen, even though not from the people you know, then should not you also be open to the idea that bike parts get stolen too, even though not from the people you know?

>And no, the DA does not withhold prosecution for theft based on ones housing status.

That could be very true and DA does not charge any bike thieves regardless of their housing status, but still the effect is the same - homeless bike thieves are never charged and convicted (using "never" statistically, probably there are some convictions but nowhere close enough to make bike theft dangerous for the criminals). Since you seem unaware: drive around and observe homeless riding bikes and guiding another one or two. Sometimes you can even see bolt cutters on them. Do you think they do this on the way from their bolt-cutting job to the bike-valet job?

[queenkjuul]

Bike theft is rare, parts theft is even rarer. Idk what you don't get.

Bike thieves are charged, regardless of housing. Why would their housing affect that?

I can't say I've ever seen a homeless person riding a bike with other bikes in tow. There are plenty of homeless people i see around, though, so I'm not convinced you're describing a real problem.

It's also very unsettling that you won't refer to them as homeless people.

eta: even the rabid inner-suburb Facebook boomers here who never shut up about the homeless people in my area have never brought up the things you're describing, I've never seen any such information in local media, which is always happy to say anything and everything negative about homeless people. I have zero reason to think homeless people are more likely to steal bikes, nor less likely to be prosecuted for doing so; far as i can tell, neither do you

[tptacek]

Also Chicago (Oak Park, really, but lots of Chicago experience too).

Bike theft is in fact pretty common? Bike thieves are charged when police luck into catching the thief like a block from the scene, but the police will be the first to tell you you aren't getting your bike back. I have friends who've had trackers on their bike, could pinpoint the actual location of the bike, and zero help from the police.

I agree with you about the connection to homelessness.

[queenkjuul]

Oh I'm not saying the bikes are recovered.

Really the only points I'm willing to push are:

1. Theft is not a major deterrent for people considering whether or not to ride a bike,

2. Homeless people are not spared from prosecution, nor are they particularly more likely to steal bikes.

You're definitely not wrong about recovery, but that's a somewhat different issue than "DAs refuse to prosecute thieves based on housing status"

[pandaman]

>Bike theft is rare, parts theft is even rarer. Idk what you don't get.

Source for these claims. "People I know" is not really a source.

>Bike thieves are charged, regardless of housing. Why would their housing affect that?

Bike thieves are not charged, why do you believe they are? How do you explain massive bike chop shops operating in the open in homeless camps? Do you think they bought all those bikes and just disassemble and reassemble them as a hobby? Should not they be able to afford rent if they can afford $10K+ bikes they sometimes have?

>so I'm not convinced you're describing a real problem.

That's a given, you are a part of the problem this is why you can't see it. Who do you think steals all the bikes? Where do homeless get all their bikes? Do think for 1 minute, it will come to you.

[queenkjuul]

I have seen with my own eyes police reports of bike thieves being charged. Bike chop shops have been notably caught and charged in Chicago while I've lived here. I know for absolute fact that bike thieves are charged on a regular basis in Chicago.

I've never seen a report of a bike chop shop in a homeless encampment in Chicago.

I'm not aware of a great number of homeless people who have bikes. I've certainly never seen anyone on a $10k bike on the city streets, regardless of housing status.

The bikes that are stolen are largely stolen by organized rings, and "scrappers" who drive up and down the alleys grabbing any scrap metal not tied down. They're not cutting bikes off racks, but they're taking ones that aren't locked up. I don't know any homeless people that own trucks, so you?

They're not being stolen by homeless people. I mean I'm obviously not saying no homeless person has ever stolen a bike, I'm saying that it's not a significant source of bike theft.

Why do you use homeless as a noun, and not an adjective? Do you also refer to Black people, gay people, or Jewish people this way?

Regardless: bike theft is not a part of the calculation for people to ride a bike, at least here. #1 reason is "riding in traffic is too scary." Reducing bike theft does nothing for those people; it's already not even on their minds when making the decision. (That's your claim, btw, so back it up if you feel like it)