As I look around Austin, I'm amazed at how many abandoned bikes there are around here. My apartment alone has 5 that I count, all just chained to stairwells or fences. They've just been sitting there rusting away for the last year. Some of them even have fairly decent (or at least cool) parts that I'd even be tempted to use if nobody else is using them - mafac centerpulls, northroad bars, or heck, even cable housing (because that stuff is EXPENSIVE).

Are there typically city ordinances or rules for when people can go ahead and move abandoned properties like these? It just kind of irks me to see these things 1) going to waste and 2) making the place look ratty.

personal choice, against the law to take someone elses property, but still, personal choice. BTW, search the forum, lots of threads with the same topic and no answer.

There's generally no ordinances or rules other than: If its not yours, Its not yours to take.

If the bike is locked to a stairwell inside a building thats a bit of a different story. Contact the Landlord, see if they're aware of the abandoned bikes...If they respond with "Yeah so and so moved out and left that darned thing chained up, freakin jerk." offer to 'remove the eyesore' for free.

Yeah, I don't need or want (or even have the room) to take the bikes right now, but at the same time, it seems like a huge waste - there are bike advocacy and volunteer organizations that people could at least donate the bike to if they wanted to junk it.

Zaphod, that's an idea, though the apartment stairwells are outside.

If you abandon something, arent you abdicating your ownership claim?
.
(assuming you can "know" something is actually abandoned).
.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ight=salvaging

Yeah, that's a hard one . I'm just guessing they're abandoned since I've lived there for one year and haven't seen the bike touched/moved at all at any hour of the day/night. The tires are dead flat, and on another abandoned(?) bike, the tire is off, the tube is gone, and the rim is bent.

I guess the real thing would be the rental contract for most of these apartments- when you move out, you and your belongings are supposed to vacate the unit. I'm not sure if the premises are covered the same way.

The Landlord or building Super would know

I think technically, no one other than the property owner on which bikes had been "abandoned" have any rights to act on them to either dispose or take ownership/possesion after the correct protocols are practiced with the code/law enforcement agencies that deal with abandoned property. I don't think you can be considered a claimant of the property if you are just a person off the street and do not own or control the property the bike was abandoned in.
Anyway, you'd be surprised that many of these bikes are not actually abandoned but just parked by lazy owners who live close by and who would not want to lift a finger to use or move it once in a while. So be careful before you even touch or even get close to many of these bikes, specially in particularly tough neighborhoods. Just not worth the porsible trouble or....pain??
JMOs

Chombi

haha agreed. I already get in trouble for staring at nice bikes that have girls on them (apparently trying to read decals can be construed as ogling. who knew?).

let me be clear though, I have no intention of just going and moving the bikes, I am just wondering what the due process for doing so would be.

Most apartment leases, at least in Austin, address the issue of abandoned bicycles. Read your lease.
Most cities have ordinances addressing the issue of abandoned bikes on public property. None of these allow a private citizen to confiscate the abandoned property.
Excerpts from the City of Austin Ordinances:
Restrictions on bicycle parking
§ 12-2-15 [Bike] Parking

(A) A person may not park a bicycle:
(1) in a manner that obstructs pedestrian or vehicle traffic; or
(2) in a space designated as a vehicle parking place or between two designated vehicle parking places.
(B) A person may not attach or secure a bicycle to public or private property in a manner that may damage, impair, or render the property unusable.

(2) ABANDONED PROPERTY means personal property, other than a motor vehicle, that is left unattended in a public place:

(a) in violation of law;

(b) for more than 48 continuous hours; or

(c) in a manner that interferes with vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
§ 9-1-7 PROPERTY OTHER THAN A MOTOR VEHICLE.

(A) The City may remove abandoned property to a place of impoundment designated by the city manager.
(B) If the person's name and address is known, the city manager shall, no later than the 10th business day after the date of the impoundment, notify a person whose property is impounded under this section that the property has been impounded.

(C) The City has a lien against impounded property for the fees provided by ordinance and for costs incurred by the City in impounding, storing, advertising the property, and providing required notices. The lien is prior and superior to all other liens of every kind, except a lien for ad valorem taxes. The City may retain possession of the property until all costs are paid and may sell the property as provided in this section.

(D) A person legally entitled to possession of impounded property may redeem the property by paying the fees and costs described in Subsection (C).

(E) The city manager may sell impounded property as provided in this subsection.

(1) Before selling impounded property the city manager shall post notices at the county courthouse and at the city hall, and shall have the notice published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a daily newspaper published in the City. The date of the posted notices and of the first published notice must be no later than the 14th day before the date of the sale. The notice must describe the impounded property, state that the property is unredeemed and will be sold, and state the date, time, place, and manner of sale.
(2) If impounded property is not redeemed by the date and time stated in the notice, property shall be sold as provided in the notice. The buyer takes the property conditioned on the right of redemption under Subsection (F).

(3) The city manager shall deduct the fees and costs described in Subsection (C) from the proceeds of the sale and hold the balance, if any, for the owner of the property. If the owner fails to claim the proceeds before the 31st day after the date of the sale, the proceeds become the property of the City.

(F) If the property has been sold, a person legally entitled to possession of impounded property may redeem the property from the buyer of the property by paying the buyer double the amount paid by the buyer of the property, and any reasonable expenses incurred by the buyer for keeping the property. Property may not be redeemed under this subsection after the 30th day after the date of the sale.

well, that's a very detailed answer. thanks

Recently there was an article in the Austin American Statesman about the University of Texas' annual removal of abandoned bicycles on campus after school is out in late May. In September they will auction off the ones that have not been claimed.

I think a lot of people here tend to project their feelings about bikes onto others. For us, if a bike is stolen, it can be like losing a member of the family (well, at least like a gerbil or something). I think a lot of of the kind of people that buy a bike, lock it outside without ever riding it and let it rust into oblivion are the same kind of people who might notice their bike is missing, get angry for about four minutes, feel glad for two minutes that at least they won't have to walk it to the dumpster when they move out and then move on with their lives. Not saying it is absolutely right to steal abandoned bikes, but rather that a lot of people make it out to be a much more black and white issue than it is.

We could ponder hypothetical situations forever but in the end all you can do is ask yourself if you're going to feel like a ****head for taking the bike. If it's a $50 Wal-Mart special and you know it'll make some poor child sooooo happy on their birthday and you know the owner moved six years ago and you were the best man at his wedding, ****head factor is probably low. If you watch some guy ride to and from work on a bike every day and you decide to clip his crappy lock and sell the bike on eBay, hopefully the ****head factor is sky high. When it falls somewhere in between... only you can make the call.

(FWIW, trying to approach the problem from a legalistic standpoint is likely fraught with just as much trouble. Just trying to take into consideration the vast variation between municipalities and their property laws would make your head spin, and that's without even trying to decode when it is or isn't ok to take abandoned property.)

The question was; "Are there typically city ordinances or rules for when people can go ahead and move abandoned properties like these?"
I am sorry you have a problem with taking a legalistic approach to the "problem". Try this: if it isn't yours, it isn't yours. I am fairly confident that there are no laws anywhere in the U.S. that give an individual the right to take a bike that is locked on the sidewalk. If your conscious allows you to take it anyway, go for it.
A friend of mine saw a person riding his son's bike down the street the other day and tackled him and beat the ---- out of him. He then sat on him until the police arrived. Turns out he was responsible for a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood. He is still in jail awaiting trial. The thief, not my friend.

I think that the "if the shoe was on the other foot..." analysis is a good one. Then consider that people don't necessarily use their property all the time. Strangely enough, the Austin ordinance allows the city to remove a bicycle after only 48 hours! That's not NEARLY long enough.

Generally, I try to hold myself to the highest standard. If I can see any way that people could disagree with what I'm doing, then I don't do it. I always assume that someone is looking. Having one's stuff stolen sucks, and I never want to cause that hardship to anybody.

How many people here have had formal training in ethics? I've had one course each at the undegraduate and graduate levels.

I have no problem with any approach to the problem. The problem is that there is no simple answer to questions like these, morally or legalistically. It's all well and good that you're "fairly confident" that all laws in all municipalities line up with assumptions you've made, but your assumptions are false. The fact is that there plenty of laws written specifically to deal with the problem of abandoned property and it is a significantly more complicated issue than "if it isn't yours, it isn't yours." In any case, an abandoned bicycle will be removed eventually, whether via theft or via tax-fund city beautification or via the OP asking his landlord about it. I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince anybody that a previously abandoned bike being ridden again is less desirable than the same bike taking up space in a landfill, regardless of who originally paid.

A somewhat amusing, if completely irrelevant anecdote. I think I smiled.

Abandoned? Come to a college campus and you'll see fleets of abandoned bikes. Some have been abandoned for obvious reasons - stolen wheelsets, components, etc. Others have been abandoned for questionable reasons - all components present and accounted for requiring some tuning- but left to die, and then there are those marked "abandoned" completely out of the blue - I saw a brand-new Bianchi fixed-gear with the "WARNING - THIS BIKE IS ABANDONED AND YOU HAVE x DAYS TO MOVE IT" notice on it. That was hilarious.

I too see abandoned bikes, especially when I tour one of the local universities. I've been tempted to grab a couple, but never have. This topic comes up again and again. IMHO, if it's not mine, I'm not taking it. But, I will take my chances on a dumpster dive.
I sleep very well at night.

I even worry about the bikes that are missing parts and are leaning up against a dumpster. Not so much about the person who put the bike at the dumpster, but the person that they stole it from

I did it...I watched a Raleigh DL-1 sit, locked to a fence on the Queens Quay bike path in the industrial port area of Toronto. About 3 years went by as the bike melted into the ground with the passing of each winter; first the Brooks B66 went, then the tires, the rust creeped covering all chrome bits. Enough!

Bolt cutters...saved the hubs, the rod brakes parts, one rim. pulley, nuts and bolts. Better than nothing, did the right thing.

I want to do the same thing to this idiot who's let an '85 Volvo 240 turbo also melt into the ground. less than 100k on it and pristine. Doesn't drive it ever...will not entertain any offers. Tires flat, rusts blistering from under the paint and one more winter it's gone from immaculate to junkyard. Oughta be a law.

If you ever been around antique tractors, steam engines, and similiar fare, you will find out about the personality type that is planning "one day" to restore his pride and joy; but in the meantime, it rots into the field while he won't entertain any offers to buy it.

I don't think stealing it from them is the answer; usually, they are quite elderly, and the answer is to wait until they pass on, then hope to buy it from the estate.

-James

the temptation is not foreign to me ... the only time I take bikes is if they are NOT locked up. and then only if it is obviously been discarded like in a trash pile, etc. they have mostly been in need of something so you're better off buying a nice used bike or a brand new one.

That's a crime against Volvo Lovers. I would LOVE to have another 80's volvo....especially a 240 turbo. If its a 2 door I might cry...the 242 turbo is pretty rare.