I probably should give this more credence, but sometimes our Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection guys on base really outdo themselves. I arrived at the office the other day to see the bike rack outside the building taped off with signs saying it couldn't be used anymore because it posed a terror threat being that close to the building. And they weren't kidding - the next day it was removed and the lag bolts cut down flush to the sidewalk. There's another rack which is the requisite 25 yard distance from the building, so it's not that big a deal, but just really seems silly. It's not like we're in Baghdad - it's freaking California! I may just carry the bike in the building and up the stairs for a while just to make the point of how ridiculous I find it.

Remember that whole "this bike is a pipe bomb" pointless scare thing?
Maybe they just heard about it.

Do they allow any other types of vehicles to park that close to the building?

Do you by any chance work in a federal office building?

(two words: Oklahoma City)

In that sort of atmosphere I am not sure dragging the bike into your office would be advisable.

OP, cool online moniker.

How close to the building can an automobile get? Point out to them that the potential for carrying large amounts of explosive is many times greater with the volume of the typical SUV.

Two more words... TRUCK BOMB.

Well this thread is on the list now. *waves at federal terror sniffers*

Hey you're in the great frozen north, why worry?

Yup, that is crazy.

A few years ago I was at a Borders book store in downtown Washington DC on 14th Street, a block from the Treasury building and two blocks from the White House. Over the loud speaker, the store manager is asking for the owner of the bike locked to a street sign outside the door to come to the front desk immediately. There were some Secret Service guys at the desk and they were going to cut off the bike for some potential threat--explosives in the seat post is about the only thing I can imagine. I think they only must have been doing this because some people were travelling by in a motorcade.

Well.... indeed not worried about potential bike bombs, but further ramping up terror awareness/paranoia doesn't do us/anyone any good. When homeland goes into overdrive, it's butterfly effect is felt here as well.

No bikes x yards from the building. hmm what's next? Change here and don the paper suit and slippers.

A couple of years ago, when security around DC was tighter, I was riding on the Mall and wanted to visit the National Botanical Garden, which is a couple of blocks from the Capitol Building. I locked my bike to rack in front of the building and went inside for about 45 minutes. When I came out and started to unlock my bike, I was approached by Capitol Hill police who wanted to inspect my rack pack (which I had left zipped shut). Turns out the even though I was outside of the security perimeter of the Capitol Building, but I was inside an informal and unannounced security perimeter which extended a few extra blocks. If I had known that, I might have locked up at Air and Space instead.

At least they waited for me to return and didn't just cut the lock and take my bike.

I was kinda hoping for the naked thing... after all who knows what one can hide beneath a paper suit.

hahahahahahahahaha

Like I said, being active duty I should probably give it more credence and don't really mean to minimize the importance of AT/FP practices, but it just seems a little over the top. It's not like I had the bike covered in bottles that were larger than 3 oz or left my shoes sitting there unattended...

It's not just a federal office building, but on a military installation...supposedly one of the most secure places around, right? I take it as more of a statement of the lack of faith in our gate guards to detect a real threat. It's just ironic to see how fast they can move to take out a bike rack but getting parts for a weapon system takes months.

As to the questions on other vehicles, it's equal treatment. If they are unattended, they shouldn't be that close either.

And honestly, part of what prompted my whining/ranting was that the old rack was protected from the wind while the first day at the new rack my ride was blown over and tweaked my front brake. As I said originally, not really that big a deal so now that I've thrown my mini-tantrum, I'll simply salute smartly and move on (otherwise known as shut up and color!)

Are you kidding me? TJ is the reason why they are afraid of bike bombs!

Oh Chip... flatterer


I grew up on Air Force bases, and as a kid we ALWAYS had a hole in a fence somewhere. I don't think there is an installation out there 100% secure when a handful of kids can ride their on/off unnoticed. One of our stupid 11-13 thing to do was to run/ride across the ends of the runways, coming from the bush. Alarms and lights would go off and the MP's would juuuust about get there before we entered the woods on the opposite side. Stupid ... yes but hella fun back then.

Always, always, always park your bike in a bike rack with the rear wheel in the rack. The bike won't fall over in anything short of 100 mph wind. Front wheel? A light breeze will topple the bike

As for the security goofiness, I was once stopped by our guards while riding my bike. He want to see my i.d. and when I asked him why he said that we (I was riding with 2 other people) looked suspicious and they just want to protect some equipment that we had out. Meanwhile 8 cars drove past that could have actually carried that equipment. He didn't really like the fact that I pointed that out

Moral of the story: Cars are normal and bikes aren't.

It probably is, but as you go from the reasoning behind a policy, and the policy as written, and the understanding of the policy by the people who enforce it, it's like a game of telephone. Bet you a nickel that if you asked someone who is responsible for moving along vehicles that are parked or stopped too close to the building about the reasons for the policy, you'd find much less than complete understanding...which is unfortunate. It's very hard to guard against dangers by rote; it's so much better if you understand the principles of why something is a threat instead.

And how big would your panniers have to be to hold 5000 pounds of ammonium nitrate, 350lbs of tovex and 1200 lbs of nitromethane?

Kid's Trailer O Death™

There are three ways security can be implemented; prepare for every eventuality, based upon intelligence and experience prepare for the most likely eventualities, or don't prepare at all. Before 9/11, security within the United States was based on the second and third options. Obviously, it didn't work. Now it's based on the first option, secure from every threat imaginable and hope that any attack gets deterred or caught before any harm is done. A bomb on or in a bicycle isn't an unimaginable danger. They've been used in Ireland, Russia, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, the last time I'm aware of was in August in Iraq. In March 2008, a bicycle bomb exploded in front of the U.S. Army Recruiting Station in Times Square in New York City. To the best of my knowledge, no arrests in that case have occurred. It may, no pun intended, seem like over kill to worry about a bomb on a bicycle, but it really isn't.

They should keep the bike rack there but just ban the carbon bikes coz they're the only ones that'll blow up. The steel bikes should be fine. Steel fanboys chime in now.

No really, it is.
Option 1 is foolish, a waste of resources and more effective at reducing our liberties than reducing threats.
Option 2 is the prudent course, and when combined with a layered security approach can help to achieve the goals of Option 1 much more effectively, without going all stoopid.

Of course that doesn't mean that moving the bike rack away from the building wasn't prudent.