[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"

[tptacek]

I agree with you about (2) but not with (1). In fact, for a lot of my bikey friends, theft is a huge consideration for which bikes they'll take where. I think the big point you're trying to make here is well taken! I just wouldn't want to create the impression that CPD is going to do anything meaningful about bike theft. :)

[queenkjuul]

Yeah but those people haven't chosen not to bike entirely because their bike might be stolen, they won't take their nicest bike to sketchy areas. To me that's a meaningfully different thing than what the person arguing is claiming.

Don't get me wrong, I'd never wanna give anyone the impression CPD is ever going to do anything useful at all lol :)

[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)

[pandaman]

Police reports do not include charges, DA office charges, police reports just describe what happened...

What you experience now is called "cognitive dissonance" - the thing you want to believe is proven to be not true and you are making things up to keep believing it.

[queenkjuul]

And I've seen the DA charge bike thieves.

What evidence do you have to support your claims that people choose not to bike because of theft, and that theft isn't prosecuted based on housing status?

Why do you use homeless as a noun to refer to people?

[pandaman]

>And I've seen the DA charge bike thieves.

Really? After finding out that the police reports you have also "seen" do not actually include charges you now have seen the DA pressing charges while strolling through the court house and walking into random arraignment hearings, I presume? And you probably did not catch any names of the perpetrators, right?

>What evidence do you have to support your claims that people choose not to bike because of theft

Talk to people perhaps? I figure you don't bike and people you know don't either, so, instead of a court house how about hanging at an LBS and asking people working there and the customers?

>and that theft isn't prosecuted based on housing status

That's not something I claimed, I said that bike theft is not prosecuted period. But homeless also are not charged with the whole bunch of crimes they commit regularly: trespassing, public intoxication, traffic violations, disturbance of peace etc. You can ask a local PD or inquiry your DA office about that.

>Why do you use homeless as a noun to refer to people?

Because it's a noun referring to such people? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20homeless