Originally Posted by
dougmc
One thing that's probably wrong with closetbiker's math is that I'm guessing the stolen bikes figure is based on those reported to the police? Many people don't report their stolen bikes to the police -- perhaps because they figure it's a lost cause, the bike isn't worth anything, because they don't have a serial number or receipt (not that they're needed, but they're certainly nice), perhaps because the bike was stolen originally? Dunno.
There's no way to know how much crime goes unreported, and anyone who pretends like they've done some research and come up with a number is clearly bull****ting you. But I suspect report rates for bike theft wouldn't be too small, provided that bike thieves are mostly smart enough to target bikes that will fence for enough money to make it worth it. Most home insurance policies will cover stolen bikes, and I would expect that people owning valuable enough bikes to be worth stealing would also be fairly likely to have insurance. You need a police report to make an insurance claim, therefore I'd expect a large portion of bike thefts to be reported.
Originally Posted by
dougmc
I also doubt that the police really do recover half of the stolen bikes -- that seems way too high. Though perhaps Vancouver police are different than Austin police?
This you're probably right on. I imagine the number is arrived at based on "number of recovered bikes / number of bikes reported stolen." Missing not only unreported thefts, but also the reality that a large number of recovered bikes auctioned off by the police are simply abandoned, not stolen.