In the process of dealing with the loss of my bikes earlier this week I've found out that there have been a rash of thefts in the area, including reports of thieves using powered cutting tools--I live near UCLA and scuttlebutt is that thieves have actually cut a few of the racks on campus--I guess maybe the metal tubing used to make the racks is at this point more susceptible than the locks. I guessing these must be the "big O" type racks, as it seems less feasible for other types--but maybe I'm not picturing whatever they would do correctly. Either way, if the racks themselves can be attacked that isn't very good news. I don't see much civic interest on spending money on switching to hi tech alloys for already scarce bike racks.

This is one reason compulsory bike licensing makes sense that I hadn't thought of before. I've always opposed compulsory licensing--but now I'm thinking maybe you should have to get a *free* license (or $3 for processing or whatever) if you want to secure your bike outside. Just so that bike thieves can't rely upon the "it's my bike, I lost the key" ploy.

I had a kind of strange thought earlier today. I was thinking about alarmed cables, which I know are generally useless on their own. But what if, instead of using it to secure your bike, you used it to secure your lock?

What I'm imagining is a small kevlar weave pouch (or some other fabric made to be difficult to cut), or a ballistic case style plastic and foam clamshell, that encloses a padlock like Crawdad described (being used with a hexagonal, sleeved chain or good quality cable.) The pouch/shell is closed with an alarmed cable lock, which protects access to the "real" lock--thus forcing the alarmed cable to be cut before the thief can get to work on it (instead of leaving it for last as one expect would normally be done).

I know the idea of locking up the lock is approaching self-parody, but I'm curious if that would be annoying enough to entice the thief to prefer another bike.