Advocacy & Safety - Does City Have the Right to Cut My Lock?

So here is the situation: last week, my winter bike disappeared from in front of my apartment. It was locked to a sidewalk bike post. After several days I managed to deduce that it was removed by a city vehicle. This involved many phone calls and getting an eye witness to the event.

This morning I got the bike returned by city engineering. The guy who cut the lock said it was taken because it was abandoned. He said he left a hand written tag on it before Christmas. This bike is at my front door and I never saw a tag. There was no tag when he returned it, and he said there was no tag on it when he cut the lock, claiming it may have blown away in the wind. I haven't used the bike since before Christmas, so it has been sitting there. But that is only because the roads have been covered in snow and ice. My apartment is upstairs and small, so I don't like keeping a dirty bike indoors. The bike is not really valuable, which is why I lock it outside, and the chain was rusted.

So now I have my bike back. I was kind of upset by the amount of work I had to go through just to track it down. But do I have any recourse to get my lock replaced? The bike is worth maybe $50 and the lock cost me $20, so it's about half the value of the bike. I just feel that it is unfair that the city can destroy my property like that. I understand the need to remove abandoned bikes, but without any tag or notice on the bike that I saw, I think I should get a new lock and an apology.

Was it locked up at the end of each day or was it locked up there without moving since before Christmas? If it's been there since Christmas, you're probably out of luck.

I think you just have to chalk this one up to experience.

The bike was static for longer than two months, locked to a city post.

I can see where they thought it was abandoned. They left a note — that seems fair — and they didn't put the bike in the police pile before you could get your hands on it.

A bummer, but ... hard to find villainous behavior here.

Forget the city's behavior -- you left your bike parked outside for two months??? Even if it is a cheap POS, that kind of treatment is just going to make it worse.

This is a good lesson for you, actually. It's called Taking Care of Your Things.

So here is the situation: last week, my winter bike disappeared from in front of my apartment. It was locked to a sidewalk bike post. After several days I managed to deduce that it was removed by a city vehicle. This involved many phone calls and getting an eye witness to the event.

This morning I got the bike returned by city engineering. The guy who cut the lock said it was taken because it was abandoned. He said he left a hand written tag on it before Christmas. This bike is at my front door and I never saw a tag. There was no tag when he returned it, and he said there was no tag on it when he cut the lock, claiming it may have blown away in the wind. I haven't used the bike since before Christmas, so it has been sitting there. But that is only because the roads have been covered in snow and ice. My apartment is upstairs and small, so I don't like keeping a dirty bike indoors. The bike is not really valuable, which is why I lock it outside, and the chain was rusted.

So now I have my bike back. I was kind of upset by the amount of work I had to go through just to track it down. But do I have any recourse to get my lock replaced? The bike is worth maybe $50 and the lock cost me $20, so it's about half the value of the bike. I just feel that it is unfair that the city can destroy my property like that. I understand the need to remove abandoned bikes, but without any tag or notice on the bike that I saw, I think I should get a new lock and an apology.


You left a bike completely unused, locked on public property, for months.

From my perspective, it doesn't matter whether or not they left a note. Any reasonable person would consider it to be abandoned, and the city had every right to cut the lock.

If you want to keep your stuff, then keep it on your property, and don't leave out, unused, for almost three months.

So if it is not possible to keep a bicycle in my apartment, what should I do with it during the winter? I have a summer bike stuffed inside already and there isn't exactly a place for one more. This is Canada, the roads are pretty messy from December until March. I see one or two people riding a bike in a month during the winter, and I wouldn't want to be those people. I ride this bike from whenever the snow and salt starts until the roads are unridable and from whenever the roads clear up to when all of the salt is removed.

At what condition can the city remove an old bicycle? They have no way to know when it was last used except for the chain being rusty. There was no tag on it, so as I see the posibilities, either the guy never tagged it, and just picks up bikes he sees that look unused. Or he tagged it and the tag fell off. In which case he should assume it was removed by the owner as a message that the bike shouldn't be removed.

Maybe every week or two, you could flip it around and lock it a different direction? Roll it through the snow and make some tracks :lol:

So if it is not possible to keep a bicycle in my apartment, what should I do with it during the winter? I have a summer bike stuffed inside already and there isn't exactly a place for one more. This is Canada, the roads are pretty messy from December until March. I see one or two people riding a bike in a month during the winter, and I wouldn't want to be those people. I ride this bike from whenever the snow and salt starts until the roads are unridable and from whenever the roads clear up to when all of the salt is removed.

At what condition can the city remove an old bicycle? They have no way to know when it was last used except for the chain being rusty. There was no tag on it, so as I see the posibilities, either the guy never tagged it, and just picks up bikes he sees that look unused. Or he tagged it and the tag fell off. In which case he should assume it was removed by the owner as a message that the bike shouldn't be removed.


The tag is a bunny trail. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether or not there was one on the bike. By your own admission, the bike had been sitting abandoned for months.

As for what to do with the winter bike - well, if you're not actually using it all that much, you'll need to reconsider whether it's worth it to you to keep it. Maybe you can disassemble it and stuff it under a bed. Maybe you can get a nice neighbor to store it for you.

But the reality is that you can't use public places as your long-term parking lot.

I frequently leave my car unused in front of my house for months - and I'd be pretty upset if the city just came and took it away and damaged it in the process.

Leaving a tag on the bike seems reasonable, but if the tag is no longer there when they came back to take the bike they should have either left it alone or left another tag on it. Since the tag was gone it's an indication that either the tag wasn't properly secured or that someone (maybe the bike owner) has removed it - possibly while using the bike. Without the tag still on the bike the city had no way of knowing if the owner had been given fair warning that his property was going to be removed.

I'd write a letter to the city mayor with copy to the transportation or maintenance departments explaining what happened and your cost and time involved in getting your bike back and replacing the lock. Provide an estimate of the total cost to you and ask for reimbursement.

this is why you shouldn't park in the same spot every day. even if you aren't using it, move it around in case someone is keeping an eye on it.

you're lucky a neighbor didn't liberate it and lucky the city didn't destroy or auction it off before you found it.

So if it is not possible to keep a bicycle in my apartment, what should I do with it during the winter? I have a summer bike stuffed inside already and there isn't exactly a place for one more.

I sympathize. But the city shouldn't set its threshold for deciding when a bike or car has been abandoned to fit a case like yours. Two months is a reasonable time for them to wait. I'm surprised you're not paying the city a fine.

Could you store the bike if you dismantled it? Bikes get a lot smaller when the wheels and pedals are off. Failing this, get a plasticized sign made with your contact details on it.

Forget the city's behavior -- you left your bike parked outside for two months??? Even if it is a cheap POS, that kind of treatment is just going to make it worse.

This is a good lesson for you, actually. It's called Taking Care of Your Things.

I can guarantee that riding a bike in winter salt conditions will do more damage than leaving it outside. A rusted chain may look bad, but is very easy to get moving with a bit of lube and most of the rust is on the surface. If you ride it every day, you just grind salt into the bearing, slush gets picked up and packs the derailleurs and all of the cables wick salt water into the housings.

To compare to cars, if someone reports a car as unused on the street around here, the police come by and tag it (a bright orange sticker on the window) and if it's not moved for 30 days, it gets towed. Sounds like your bike got similar treatment. I think the only beef you have is whether or not the bike was actually tagged and whether the tag was properly affixed and durable enough, but with the winter weather they may have put something reasonable on that simply didn't hold up to the weather. If they can show you a record of the tag being put on the bike, then yeah, you're outta luck. If they can't produce such a record, then maybe you could complain but I still bet it won't go anywhere. It's a $20 lock; chalk it up to experience and move on.

By the guys description, the tags are beige hand written notes in a ziplock bag taped to the handlebar. I walk in front of my bike every day and I am very doubtful there was ever any such tag on it. There was certainly none when he removed it. I suspect rather than going through the effort of tagging bikes far in advance, he just eyeballs it and picks up the old looking ones.

I'm actually on Dan the Man's side for this one. If the city intends to enforce it's notice of intent to tow, impound, confiscate, remove anothers property, the tag or notice should be a numbered item, like any ticket that the city issues. That tag or notice should also be tracked, otherwise how would the city know when the time period has elapsed. It is not uncommon for a bike to be locked on public easements and not breaking any laws. The process is in place, if they can't produce a tag or notice number specifically issued for that bike, they obviously returned his bike, the lock and whatever damaged they caused should be compensated for their error if the documentation isn't in order.

Recently the city I live in has implemented a bike rental program, we'll call it Decobike because, that's the name of the program. The solar powered docking/rental stations are being installed everywhere. The city is using spaces that formerly were parking spots for those that own automobiles. Automobile owners that now have fewer spaces to park because of the new program, yet have to purchase parking decals that prior to the program still didn't guarantee a parking space. These docking/rental stations are installed in residential areas where tenants of apartments without parking lots face parking their cars on the streets. Same holds for the bikes. You can see the dilemma here. Cars get towed, those that own their own bikes rather than rent are displaced from being able to lock their bikes up in favor of a $ 15/month or pay per use shared bike program that now occupies the spots where a car was parked or even had a bike rack to lock a bike to. What if a resident wants to own a simple Wal-Mart $ 69.99 Huffy ? That's considerably less than $ 180 for annual fees for the shared bike program. So ownership of a car and a bike is being discouraged & penalized so the city can rent a bike. The city will continue to tow cars, remove bicycles, yet the bike rental program will never be in the wrong at the expense of a citizens right to the pursuit of happiness in owning the bicycle of their choice.

I think Dan's dilemma falls under a public domain issue that the city he lives in created. So the bike was there for a couple of months, locked because it was too damn cold to ride it. Well Spring is arriving and perhaps this bike is also used throughout the year. Was it abandoned ? I don't consider it as that, because Dan continued to live where he did. They cut his lock, jacked his bicycle, whether intentionally for auction purposes or in error, he is entitled to be made whole for the property. That doesn't begin to cover the effort for him to track down a problem the city created.

Considering the condition of the bike, and that you left it locked up outside, and it was left outside for quite some time, I am not surprised it was perceived as being tantamount to an 'abandoned vehicle'. Get a better bike and keep it indoors.

I think Dan's dilemma falls under a public domain issue that the city he lives in created. So the bike was there for a couple of months, locked because it was too damn cold to ride it. Well Spring is arriving and perhaps this bike is also used throughout the year. Was it abandoned ? I don't consider it as that, because Dan continued to live where he did. They cut his lock, jacked his bicycle, whether intentionally for auction purposes or in error, he is entitled to be made whole for the property. That doesn't begin to cover the effort for him to track down a problem the city created.
As a citizen of my city, I wouldn't want to see rusty old bikes chained to every lamp post and parking meter. What about other property that I can't or don't have room to store - can I chain that to a lamp post for a few months too and not expect it to be removed?

Two months is a more than reasonable time to wait before removing them. No tag necessary.

Things would get pretty unsightly very quickly if everyone left property locked to public fixtures.

And whether it's right or not for the city to do this, obviously they did it, and it seems likely they'd do it again.

As for getting a new lock, you'd have to sue them, and in general the odds of successfully suing the government are slim at best. And for only $20? (An apology is not likely at all.)

Chalk it up to experience, consider yourself lucky that you got the bike back at all, buy a new lock, and don't let it happen again.

Depending on city laws, you may be lucky. Some cities would have had the police give you one, two or maybe three parking citations before taking the bike. Then when you found your bike, the city could demand that you pay the fine(s), plus a storage charge before returning the bike.

It's locked to a bike post, not a lamp post or a parking meter. A post in the sidewalk for locking bikes to. So how should cities determine how long something has been locked up for and how long is too long? Should every old looking bike be removed from bike racks?

I don't know the rule on bikes, but in Texas if a car is seen to be on the street parked for some time without moving they chalk the tire. After a week or so, if the city worker see's the chalk in the same place (the car hasn't moved) they will tow it and you have to pay for the tow and to get it out of the garage they tow it to.

I'm not saying I think this is fair, I'm just saying that if they will do this to a car, it stands to reason that they will do this to a bike as well.

It's locked to a bike post, not a lamp post or a parking meter. A post in the sidewalk for locking bikes to. So how should cities determine how long something has been locked up for and how long is too long? Should every old looking bike be removed from bike racks?You really need to look up your city laws.

Honolulu only allows 24 hours for automobile parking before they can be ticketed even if on a free parking street. After that the city puts a notice on the car and week or so later will tow it as abandoned.

Honolulu did not have a similar bicycle law until some jackass bought a bunch of cheap chopper bikes, put advertisements on the bikes and then locked them around the city on the bike stands (skirting the advertising sign restrictions). That prompted a new law of around one week bicycle sidewalk parking limit.

I don't know the rule on bikes, but in Texas if a car is seen to be on the street parked for some time without moving they chalk the tire. After a week or so, if the city worker see's the chalk in the same place (the car hasn't moved) they will tow it and you have to pay for the tow and to get it out of the garage they tow it to.

I'm not saying I think this is fair, I'm just saying that if they will do this to a car, it stands to reason that they will do this to a bike as well.

So by that analogy, what they did is they chalked the tire and then came back and towed the car even though the chalk was gone. Or maybe they never chalked it at all in the first place and just came along and took an old looking car.

So by that analogy, what they did is they chalked the tire and then came back and towed the car even though the chalk was gone. Or maybe they never chalked it at all in the first place and just came along and took an old looking car.From this thread and a few other post, you sound like a college kid that likes pissing in the wind.

Seriously, go read your cities laws and then get back to us.

Maybe you should contact the city to find out the answers to your questions. Someone at city hall will be able to direct you to the city by-laws (which can often be found online).

I'd be more interested in finding out how your city deals with such things than you coming in here and whining about what you "feel" is an injustice.

DTM, you ARE lucky. They could have sent it to auction, scrapped it, whatever. You left it for more than a month.

It's not etched in stone, and different jurisdictions handle it differently, but the general accepted standard is "more than 30 days is abandoned." Lacking a specific code to follow, most civil court judges would default to that.

(CB, kinda agree with your feeling.)

So by that analogy, what they did is they chalked the tire and then came back and towed the car even though the chalk was gone. Or maybe they never chalked it at all in the first place and just came along and took an old looking car.


Again with the bunny trails.

How can it be any clearer? By any reasonable standard, you abandoned the bike. Doesn't matter where, doesn't matter why. Leaving your bike ANYWHERE without moving it for 2+ months is abandonment, pure and simple.

It's a safe assumption that people don't want public spaces to be used as long-term storage. The onus is on YOU to take care of your things. You benefited from the fact that the city allowed you to use a public space for an unreasonable amount of time.

And yet you're still complaining about it? Really?

Come on. Man up, admit to yourself that you did something unreasonable, you benefited from lenient municipal policy, and move on with your life a little wiser in the ways of the world and how to be a little more personally responsible.

Obviously I have been dealing with the city. Most every department I spoke with said my bike was stolen and the city doesn't cut locks because of all of the complaints it causes. It was only after many phone calls that I found the department that handles it and they were sending it to police auction.

Since when is it unreasonable to keep your bike outside? I don't know if you have ever lived in a tiny downtown apartment, but it makes a lot more sense to keep an old bike outside than lugging it up 2 flights of stairs to block your sofa. Have you never heard of city dwellers keeping bikes outside? Are they all crazy unreasonable people? In this case, I was keeping my bike outside. It was not abandoned because I checked on it every day. I contend that there is any such time limit on having a bike locked up outdoors, and there is no bylaw limiting how long a bicycle can be locked. Cleaning up abandoned bikes is one thing, but I say the onus is on the city to prove that it is garbage, not the owner to prove otherwise.

If not tagging, what is a reasonable way for the city to decide whether a bike has been abandoned or not? Does everyone think it is okay for a city worker to eyeball a bicycle and cut the lock?

Cleaning up abandoned bikes is one thing, but I say the onus is on the city to prove that it is garbage, not the owner to prove otherwise.

And most people would say that leaving the bike there for two months meets an acceptable standard of proof. As, apparently, would US courts. I really think you need to move on from your feeling of outrage here...

I frequently leave my car unused in front of my house for months - and I'd be pretty upset if the city just came and took it away and damaged it in the process.

In most urban places in the US, leaving a car unmoved for 72 hours puts it into the abandoned category, where it can be towed. The car owner winds up paying for the tow, and for storage ... or forfeiting their car.

it really depends on the local ordinances. Around here it depends on the jurisdiction. The main township has a 48 hour limit posted on every bike rack. The university collects bikes once a year. I'm not sure about the outlying townships, but there really isn't any place that makes sense to leave a bike for very long. Given the behavior of the student population here, abandoned bikes is a fairly big problem because it's often hard to find a place to lock your bike. Sometimes there are 5-6 bikes sitting outside my building that never move, and there are less than 20 parking spaces. So you often have to lock to something other than a bike rack.

And to answer the question in the title to the thread, yes, they have the right to cut your lock

By the guys description, the tags are beige hand written notes in a ziplock bag taped to the handlebar. I walk in front of my bike every day and I am very doubtful there was ever any such tag on it. There was certainly none when he removed it. I suspect rather than going through the effort of tagging bikes far in advance, he just eyeballs it and picks up the old looking ones.

Most likely, a neighbor reported an abandoned bike. What should then happen is the bike should be tagged and removed if the tag isn't removed by the owner. The guy who cut the lock screwed up, because he should have assumed either the tag blew away, or the owner removed the tag. In either event, he shouldn't have cut it.

Still, at this point you should just let it go.


Again with the bunny trails.

How can it be any clearer? By any reasonable standard, you abandoned the bike. Doesn't matter where, doesn't matter why. Leaving your bike ANYWHERE without moving it for 2+ months is abandonment, pure and simple.


Nonsense. By the simple fact that he didn't. actually. abandon. the. bike.

Some of you guys are missing the point, the bike was locked to a bike rack, had all the working parts, both tires, a seat, pedals. grips, handlebars & wasn't stripped and so on, right outside the man's apartment. He still lived there, continued to live there, the bike was not in a state of disrepair, a little rusty but rideable. Dan probably walked by the bike every day and now that the blizzard of 2010/11 is over, he simply wants to check the tire pressure and ride the bike after unlocking it. I agree over a $ 20 lock, it's probably not worth putting thru the legal system. So for 2 pages of this, we're all getting worked up over something that will not change. It's not a matter of how ugly the bike is, because the city would have no issue with anyone riding an ugly bike over to the Starbucks and getting a venti caramel frappucino on it ? It's a matter of right & wrong. I'm certain if the city deemed it was our property or negligence that damaged something considered public property, they wouldn't hesitate levying a fine, even charge for repairs. Is it so wrong to expect that the local government's error(s) be compensated similarly ?

Some of you guys are missing the point,
If you think we are missing the point, then feel free to go ahead and park YOUR bike in a public rack for over two months without ever moving it. Just do not come whining to us after it goes missing.

Some of you guys are missing the pointYes, not agreeing = missing the point.


Is it so wrong to expect that the local government's error(s) be compensated similarly ?Expect all you want, but that won't make it happen.

It's the government, they'll do whatever they can get away with -- which is a lot. They say the left a note -- and they probably did. That's more than many government officials would do.

Would you prefer that they come and bring a bicycle expert to testify on the condition of the bicycle and verify that "Yes, it has some rust, but it's still ride-able" ? Perhaps canvas the neighborhood with flyers that say "Do you own this bike? If so, move it or we'll take it!" If two months wasn't long enough, just how long is long enough before the city can decare it abandoned?

The (local) government is all about being practical. They probably cut loose lots of abandoned bikes. In the vast majority of cases, the bikes are likely truly abandoned -- and in the few cases where they aren't, well, too bad, the law is almost certainly on their side.

In most urban places in the US, leaving a car unmoved for 72 hours puts it into the abandoned category, where it can be towed. The car owner winds up paying for the tow, and for storage ... or forfeiting their car.
Yes, there are such ordinances in some communities - don't know if it's most or not since I only have a real interest in my own. Here the car would only be towed if 1) there's been a complaint, and 2) a prominent notice was left on the car for 72 hours and it was still there. In the case in question the notice was either not left or was at least no longer there when the bike was picked up. That should have been a signal to the city worker that the pickup should be canceled until another note can be left on the bike that stays in place for a reasonable period of time as determined by local ordinance. If the notes keep disappearing it seems like a pretty good sign that the bike is not abandoned.

But Dan's complaints to us aren't going to get him compensation for his time and broken lock. A letter to the appropriate city departments and politicians may or may not be do that but it costs little and may at least result in a reexamination of their procedures.

By law, on most, if not all, Portland streets without metered parking a car can only be parked in one place for 24 hours.

The "chalk" they use is actually more like a grease pencil in white or yellow. If the mark is still on the sidewall and tread then the car's been there too long.

Prior to towing a sticker will be adhered to the vehicle warning of an impending tow after 72 hours have elapsed.

This process happens within a MUCH shorter time frame in metered spaces.

I think it costs about $200 (+ approx $20 per day storage) to get your car back these days.

OP: Considered a folding bike? Easier to get up stairs. Needs a smaller mat on which to let drip-dry.

GP, because the city leadership & even employees have already raped the petty cash fund as they're laying off thousands. Sweetheart deals have depleted funds too.

Just me, but if one is going to abandon a bike, the lock & chain is worth something, so simply unlock it. That way it's easy for the next owner or city to acquire a bike. Heck if you don't even want the lock, leave the combination number or keys with it ? That way it's a package deal. Those that abandon without regard to even being that decent, I have no respect for. I've seen rusted frames stripped completely that are still locked up, those need to be collected for scrap or whatever, but if the owner had just left it unlocked, there's always someone that can take the frame and paint it, put it back together and make a decently rideable bike out of it. Even if I were to unload a bike and give it away, there's always a thrift shop that will take it off your hands, write up an itemized tax deduction for you on the spot.

If you think we are missing the point, then feel free to go ahead and park YOUR bike in a public rack for over two months without ever moving it. Just do not come whining to us after it goes missing.

The apartment complex I live in complains if you leave your grill on your patio more than a day after using it for a cookout. They don't want bikes locked or even dish network dishes mounted either. It is what it is ?

Time for a bigger apartment.

I can guarantee that riding a bike in winter salt conditions will do more damage than leaving it outside. A rusted chain may look bad, but is very easy to get moving with a bit of lube and most of the rust is on the surface. If you ride it every day, you just grind salt into the bearing, slush gets picked up and packs the derailleurs and all of the cables wick salt water into the housings.

Bad guarantee. I've been riding through New England winters since 1984 and my bicycles have fared just fine. OTOH, I've seen bikes like the OPs, chained to the lampost for 3 months, and I wouldn't take one of them if they were given to me by my favorite aunt. Nothing but seized hubs, gravelly headsets and rust (FYI, bicycle chains don't have bearings).

Bad guarantee. I've been riding through New England winters since 1984 and my bicycles have fared just fine. OTOH, I've seen bikes like the OPs, chained to the lampost for 3 months, and I wouldn't take one of them if they were given to me by my favorite aunt. Nothing but seized hubs, gravelly headsets and rust (FYI, bicycle chains don't have bearings).

Technically they do Mr. Smarty Pants, but I was talking about hub and bottom brackets, not chains. Riding a bike actively moves water into these parts.

It was not abandoned because I checked on it every day.

How is a city worker supposed to know that? Nobody other than you even knew that that bike belonged to a resident of your building.

My old neighbors used to leave old damaged cars parked in the street in front of their house for months at a time. I only wish that somebody had come to tow the cars away.

How is a city worker supposed to know that? Nobody other than you even knew that that bike belonged to a resident of your building.


Maybe they could try leaving a note on the bike and seeing if it is still there when they come back.

So if it is not possible to keep a bicycle in my apartment, what should I do with it during the winter? I have a summer bike stuffed inside already and there isn't exactly a place for one more. This is Canada, the roads are pretty messy from December until March. I see one or two people riding a bike in a month during the winter, and I wouldn't want to be those people. I ride this bike from whenever the snow and salt starts until the roads are unridable and from whenever the roads clear up to when all of the salt is removed.

At what condition can the city remove an old bicycle? They have no way to know when it was last used except for the chain being rusty. There was no tag on it, so as I see the posibilities, either the guy never tagged it, and just picks up bikes he sees that look unused. Or he tagged it and the tag fell off. In which case he should assume it was removed by the owner as a message that the bike shouldn't be removed.

Dan,

If in the future you "need" to leave your bike locked in one place for an extended period of time go to your local LBS and get a Topeak cover and cover it. That way it should show that someone cares about it. Or maybe you can move it to a different spot on the rack or whatever you locked it to. You know like how in a lot of cities one has to move their car on alternate days for street cleaning and whatnot.

Maybe they could try leaving a note on the bike and seeing if it is still there when they come back.Have you even checked to see what the laws are yet?

Why don't you leave a note with your name and phone number asking them to call you to confirm the bike is currently not abandoned?

Have you even checked to see what the laws are yet?

Why don't you leave a note with your name and phone number asking them to call you to confirm the bike is currently not abandoned?

I have checked all bylaws pertaining to bicycles, nothing about how long they can be locked up. I did however learn that our city has a mandatory bicycle licensing program with a $20 fine for not having a license. I have never before heard of this or seen a license on any bicycle.

I have checked all bylaws pertaining to bicycles, nothing about how long they can be locked up. I did however learn that our city has a mandatory bicycle licensing program with a $20 fine for not having a license. I have never before heard of this or seen a license on any bicycle.As a precaution, if you only checked under laws listed as 'bicycle section', then check under laws titled parking. Sometimes bicycle parking laws are within those sections and not easy to find. Another area to look under is sidewalk laws.

Obviously I have been dealing with the city. Most every department I spoke with said my bike was stolen and the city doesn't cut locks because of all of the complaints it causes. It was only after many phone calls that I found the department that handles it and they were sending it to police auction.

Maybe from their perspective they may have truly thought that your bike had been stolen.


Since when is it unreasonable to keep your bike outside? I don't know if you have ever lived in a tiny downtown apartment, but it makes a lot more sense to keep an old bike outside than lugging it up 2 flights of stairs to block your sofa. Have you never heard of city dwellers keeping bikes outside? Are they all crazy unreasonable people? In this case, I was keeping my bike outside. It was not abandoned because I checked on it every day. I contend that there is any such time limit on having a bike locked up outdoors, and there is no bylaw limiting how long a bicycle can be locked. Cleaning up abandoned bikes is one thing, but I say the onus is on the city to prove that it is garbage, not the owner to prove otherwise.

When you leave it there unmoved for 2+ months. Sounds like you might want to upgrade your living arrangements or get used to "blocking" your sofa with your bike in order to keep it from being seized by the city. OR maybe YOU can move it every other day. IF they see that it's constantly being moved they'll know that isn't an "abandoned" bike. We only have your word that you checked on it everyday. Yes, the city was wrong to remove it when there was no longer any tag on it (if there ever was a tag on it in the first place) but in their defense as others have said it was parked in the SAME spot 2+ months. Tag or no tag what are they suppose to think? And just because there is nothing in the bylaws that limit how long a bike can be parked in one location don't you think that leaving it in one place for 2+ months is pushing things?

After 2+ months of NOT moving even an inch is all the proof that they really need.


If not tagging, what is a reasonable way for the city to decide whether a bike has been abandoned or not? Does everyone think it is okay for a city worker to eyeball a bicycle and cut the lock?

See above, but in case you missed it, NOT moving an inch in 2+ months is all the proof that they need that it is an "abandoned" bike. Just HOW long are they suppose to wait before can remove a bike as being "abandoned?" You got it back, consider the "lost" lock as a small price to pay for a lesson learned.

And most people would say that leaving the bike there for two months meets an acceptable standard of proof. As, apparently, would US courts. I really think you need to move on from your feeling of outrage here...

+100