meanwhile

I despise people who deliberately alter quotes to change their meaning - it's a form of lying. I've restored the text you deleted ans put it in bold. Being a witch (or not) was a matter of objective fact. What side of the road you should drive on and how long you can leave bicycles locked up are strongly arbitrary. Different.

Yes, it comes down to his word against that of someone complacent enough to get himself into this situation who *thinks* that he would have seen a tag. And I certainly reject the idea that a bike from which the tag has been removed shouldn't be taken: if this procedure was followed you'd never know if the tag had blown away and the bike was abandoned, or whether the owner had removed the tag and not bothered to contact the city.

That isn't the case at all. They returned the bike because they were being nice; if they hadn't been nice then, according to the regulations of that city, they could have fined him for having two unregistered bikes. They were nice and the guy is *still* complaining!

Digital_Cowboy

It is an abuse of the system to use a bike rack provided public parking for long term storage. Leaving a bike locked to a bike rack for two months is an abuse of the system. And is the reason that cities and businesses initiate time limits. Because people have abused their generosity. Here in St. Pete there are signs posted along the Gandy Beach that make it clear that over night parking/camping is prohibited. There are also signs along several beaches prohibiting the burying of camp fires.

If you look back you'll see that I only agreed with the possibility of the OP leaving a note after someone else suggested it. If he moved it around it would at least look like it was being ridden and used. Instead of being left in one position day in and day out.

I still maintain that it is the OP's responsibility to store his own bike, and not the city's. If he doesn't want to ride in the winter that fine, but it's not the city's responsibility to provide him with free long term storage.

mconlonx

Good argument for bike registration.

Around here, as long as you have current registration on a car, it cannot be towed as abandoned. Bike registration might be good in the same kind of instance, like this.

What is city policy regarding locked up bikes? If this was someone asking the usual question, "Hey, I see this beater bike every day, doesn't look like anyone has touched it in months -- when is it officially OK to take it?", they'd get shouted down for being a jerk around here in no time. When NYC beautifies the city by clearing out derelict bikes, we're all up in arms about how they should have been left alone.

Face it, unless there's some written guidelines about this, the action on the city's part was capricious, vindictive, andaybe illegal.

OP needs to take city to small claims court o er the lock issue and get a for real decision.

But now y'all are down on this guy? Because the city broke his lock and stole his bike...?

Digital_Cowboy

Exactly, according to the city's established regulations that the OP himself turned up in his research he'd be fined for having not just one but two unlicensed bikes. bikes that HE himself brought to the attention of the city as being unlicensed.

Would he feel better if instead of the city having taken his bike because it was "abandoned" that they had taken it because it was in violation of the city's licensing regs? Maybe his city needs to go around and start collecting EVERY bike that doesn't have a license. As well as starting to issue fines for every bike that isn't licensed.

IF they did that just think at how many PO cyclists there'd be in his city.

noisebeam

If registered they could contact the owner.

CB HI

Yet the OP failed to legally register his bicycles as he was required to do. How do you think that will play out in court?

Digital_Cowboy

Not very well. Here's a question how will other cyclists react when the city that DTM lives in starts cracking down on unlicensed bikes because he raised a stink over having his bike carted off as an "abandoned" bike?

fuji86

They probably will be unhappy about it, but it's not like they're going to announce that DTM was the sole cause/impetus for the crackdown. Post his name and address with a picture in the local paper or on the internet ?

Digital_Cowboy

Your probably right in that if they decide to start cracking down on the unlicensed bikes and fining people that they won't announce why they decided to do so. Unless they read this forum.

sudo bike

I think the registration is somewhat of a red herring when considering the city's procedure. I very much doubt the city checked for registration... they would have at least mentioned it when giving the bike back if they even knew about it. I also very, very much doubt the city was "just being nice" by not fining him. Truthfully, it's possible it's one of the many places in America that have old registration laws on the books that are not enforced or even really known about. Some of them don't even have a procedure to actually register a bike anymore, even though there's a registration law.

noisebeam

I don't know anything about the registration specifics for the OP, but where I live there is a city law requiring all bicycles be registered. However there is " There is no penalty or civil sanction for violation of section 7-11. (the registration law)". It seems it is done to encourage and set up a process for registration to help with theft recovery.

larry_llama

Including the city worker who took a non-abandoned bike as abandoned?

This is amazing. This thread just gets better. Being a witch or not is objective fact? Like being the easter bunny or not? I'm interested in the objective scientific measures used to determine witchiness. Is it whether or not they float? Maybe the city worker should have compared the weight of DTM's bike to that of a duck and based the abandonment decision on that...

Are you and DC disgruntled city workers or what?

You clearly miss the point of the tag. It's not for the city to get a call from the owner. If the tag remains for a certain amount of time, the bike is determined to be abandoned. If the tag is removed, it's assumed the bike is under someone's care. So, by your method, if the tag blows away, that is proof of abandonment. Amazing.

Your point only stands if there were signs or an otherwise clearly published bylaw of a time limit, and a clearly published (and strictly followed) procedure for determining a breach of the limit.

sudo, I agree that the bike registration issue is a totally separate one and has nothing to do with the original posters question.

Digital_Cowboy

That may be true for a lot of US cities, but we don't know that the OP lives in the US and as the OP has stated in his city there is a $20.00 fine for NOT having one's bike licensed.

Digital_Cowboy

So then as I suggested the various cities need to issue those employees digital cameras that have been programed to imprint the date and time onto each picture (I'm sure that their code enforcement board already does this so it's not an expense that they have to justify) as well as several inexpensive bicycle locks and fit them with military style metal tags with a phone number to call. And they go around and "chalk" a bicycles tire and sidewalk by drawing a line down the sidewall of the tire onto the sidewalk and photograph it. They can then come back a day or so later and if the bike hasn't moved easy to determine by comparing the digital picture to the how the bike is still located. And if it hasn't moved they "boot" the bicycle, if it hasn't been abandoned the owner will be calling the city to get their bike unbooted. If after another 24 or 48hrs they don't get any call they can collect the bike as being abandoned.

Yes, they should make it clear that they are starting a new procedure for determining if a bicycle has been abandoned.

The point is valid because in the absence of signs or bylaws specifying a time limit there are plenty of people who will take advantage any given situation. As another example look around at the various parking lots and see how many signs that the businesses have erected telling people again that overnight parking is not allowed.

And again common sense dictates (or should) that a bike rack provided to public by the city/county/state is for SHORT TERM PARKING and NOT LONG TERM STORAGE.

himespau 

Why? If it's not being used at all currently? Somebody (the city) puts racks into the sidewalk right in front of my apartment, why should I not use that as my daily parking space any more than using nonmetered curb space as my daily car parking space? Now with car space there's often more cars than available space, but if no one else is using the rack, why can't I leave my bike there over the weekend if I'm commuting only during the week? And if over the weekend is ok, why not that week while I'm gone on vacation? Or how about if I sprain my ankle and am unable to ride for a couple of weeks for my commute, but walk past it every day on the way to the bus stop and give it a look over to make sure that it's not falling apart or in the way and is still there? If it's near businesses or in a retail district where there's a lot of turnover and other people could be using it, that's one thing, but if it's in a residential area and isn't being used (and doesn't say not for long term storage on it), why can't I use it?

LesterOfPuppets

I imagine if a city has enough problems with public bike rack campers and/or abandoned bikes that an ordinance concerning such will get discussed and possibly enacted.

I think 72 hours would be fine. Perhaps even the more strict 24 hours that Portland uses for its onstreet parking regs:

I'm hoping the city/county/state legislature doesn't have to waste its time/our money on such an ordinance but it might happen.

mymojo

One question:

What part of leaving your stuff unattended on public property for three months qualifies as "not abandoned"?

Digital_Cowboy

That may be true for a lot of US cities, but we don't know that the OP lives in the US and as the OP has stated in his city there is a $20.00 fine for NOT having one's bike licensed.

Consularrider

Just to add another wrinkle to keep this thread going off on tangents - unregistered low value beater bike - did he have to provide proof of ownership to recover the bike from the city, and do you think he still has the original purchase receipt?

Oh, and I think DTM has taken the point raised earlier here and just gotten on with his life or at least seen the futility of seeking compasion on this subforum.

exile

I think DTM last post was on page 2. The only thing we know is that:
1. He's in Canada
2. Doesn't like the fact his lock was cut and bike was confiscated, however did get his bike back
3. Doesn't seem to want to hear an explanation from other posters as to why it may have happened
4. Other posters have taken it upon themselves to keep up the crusade for DTM
5. Other posters have continued to explain why it may have happened

sudo bike

Who said it was unattended?

sudo bike

Or the thread simply evolved, as threads often do, to discuss the broader subject of city confiscation. Thread drift is an amazing thing.

If we can keep this thread alive for a few pages longer, I'm sure we'll be discussing FRAP or helmet advocacy.

himespau 

Nah, I vote we'll all be discussing why that d-bag didn't wave at me when I passed him in my commuter outfit while he was in his training getup.

dmac49

I stand corrected

mymojo

Dan did.