|
|
|
|
|
by pandaman
201 days ago
|
|
>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. |
|
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)