As an advocate of "lightweight" touring, I'm happy to see more and more threads that examine how folks can tour lighter without spending a chunk of money.

That said, a friend of mine just gave some bike touring folks a ride to Austin and in the short time they were there, one of their bikes was stolen. I really felt for the tourers and the anguish they were going through, but then I saw a picture of the victim in question holding his very thin combination cable lock which had probably been cut in a matter of seconds. I still feel for him, but looking at it, I can only wonder, "What did you expect in Austin?"

So please, PLEASE, if you're going on tour, consider a smallish u-lock over a "lightweight" cable. Mine only weighs about a pound, and the smaller size also equates to less room for a thief to get any leverage and break your lock. (I've seen it done with car jacks, among other devices) The extra pound is so worth it over losing your precious bike and all your gear, leaving you stranded.

That really stinks!! Any specific product recommendations?? I will need to secure 2 bikes during our cross country ride.
Thanks!

For two bikes, I would probably say one long and one short. One short one to lock one bike down to something secure and the longer one to lock up to the other bike. Or, if needed, they can be used separately. If you can get the top tubes really close together (panniers and such might get in the way of this), you could probably get away with two short or one long, but I'd say go with an option where you can lock separately as well.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, some cheaper u-locks use a simple stamped steel sheet retainer. The nicer (but not necessarily more expensive) ones use actual solid pins on each side. Imagine if the striker on a door knob was a stamped steel sheet as opposed to a solid chunk of metal. Normally, you have to open the locks to check this out, but I've had good luck with brands like On Guard and Bulldog. Kryptonite is usually great, but generally more expensive.

My practice is to:

1. Not worry in tiny isolated rural towns.
2. Use a light cable lock in most campgrounds.
3. If possible, not leave my bike unattended in larger cities. If not possible take whatever precautions seem necessary, like taking the bike in with you or asking someone about a safe place to leave it.
4. In big cities, get a room.
5. Ride a bike I can afford to lose.

While this advice is well-meant, I believe it is misguided. My suggestions are

1) stay away from big cities where bike thieves abound.

2) don't leave a bike unattended in big cities.

3) don't leave a locked bike where people can see it (take it into the store and then lock it).

4) don't carry a heavy lock for the few occasions when it might be useful. Be vigilant, instead.

5) human smarts is better than heavy security.

While I don't worry too much about weight, I surely don't want to carry any unnecessary weight. And, I consider a U-lock unnecessary weight.

In addition to the good advice offered in posts 4 and 5, I'll remind readers that most bike locks can defeated with common hand tools - the only secure condition is to stay with your bike.

A portable grinder with a new cut-off disc will cut through even the largest, heaviest U-lock in about 30 seconds.

But not all bike thieves have portable grinders.

Do you bother to lock your house? Because, you know, any door lock can be opened with proper tools/knowledge/enough force.

I leave my bike lock where I park my bike then ride home...

In a city stay in a Hostel with a secure bike shed, or rent a Motel room,
and keep the bike in it too .


a lost commuter visits the touring section , I'd say..
not realistic unless you never go further than where you left the lock.

I think not leaving your bike unattended goes without saying, but it's just not always the only option. If you're in a situation where you HAVE to lock a bike up, the peace of mind from a 1 pound u-lock vs a 3 oz. cable lock is worth it. I don't think this is misguided advice. The tourer in question obviously thought he could get away with it and suddenly found himself in a situation where he had to leave it unattended and this is what happened. If big cities aren't on your route and you know without a doubt you never, ever have to leave your bike unattended, then a cable lock will usually suffice. And yes, campgrounds are particularly less prone to theft than anywhere else in general.

I commute every day to school and would never think of trying to save weight by taking along a light cable lock vs. my u-lock. Why would a mutli-day tour be any different?

And obviously a u-lock can be cut with a portable grinder, but in the situation where it matters most, a big city with lots of bikes and bike theft, they will usually go for the weakest targets first and crimes of impulse are rarely committed with serious power tools, but with simple hand tools.

If traveling in a pair matching cable locks can be joined when needed to make one long lock.

I thought that one was pretty funny. That strategy must work great on a long tour

Do you ride 50-100 miles per day on your commute? Do you climb 7,000 feet or more on your daily commute? Those kinds of days aren't uncommon for tourists in mountains. And if you're doing one of the long Adventure Cycling tours, you may spend 3-5 days out of 70-90 days in large towns or cities; that's a lot of hauling for not much locking.

I'm with the "watch the bike or lock it in a room" crowd.

So the first time on this forum I propose carrying a little more weight and everyone freaks out?

Seriously. I understand that in a best case scenario, a lock shouldn't really factor. But it's kind of a given that you might end up in a situation where you really need a lock.

And again, I'm really confused here. Whenever "lightweight" touring pops up, it's usually a countdown before someone mentions that on a bike, the weight doesn't matter much compared to, say, backpacking. So people lug around too many clothes and tents 2-3 times heavier than necessary, all the while claiming it doesn't make that much difference. And I suggest a simple bit of security for a pretty small weight penalty that can make the difference between having a bike and being stranded hundreds of miles from home without any transportation or gear, and folks react as if I've just suggested a 10 pound chain.

I understand the differences between touring and commuting. Where I don't see a difference is locking up my bike near a restaurant in my city vs. locking my bike up near a restaurant in Golden, CO. Or perhaps my neighborhood tom thumb vs. pretty much any other city. I don't care if I don't see a stoplight for 5 days. The day I stop in even a moderately sized town and decide to go in for a sit down meal, I'll be much more at ease knowing my bike is secure.

I use a frame mounted ring lock, and carry a separate cable to use with it.



It adds weight but also peace of mind. Then again, I don't carry cramping gear/food, so weight is less of an issue for me.

+1 to NEVER leave bike alone in BIG CITIES.

To wit:

lol freaking out=disagreeing with you.

Which u-lock do you have exactly?

I think an audible motion sensitive alarm would be a good addition too..

I have this onguard lock. It's definitely heavier than a cable, but in my case, it probably weighs about as much as the rack I'm not using.

The difference is, if you're 12 days out from home, you're in a different world of hurt if someone steals your bike than if you're a mere 2 hour walk home. At least that's the difference I see. That, and I know what areas of my city are more worrisome than others, but I don't know that about your city. But yeah, I think the weight of my lock is worth the penalty everywhere I've been so far (ie not a ton of actual touring).

We all get to choose how much lock to carry. If you want to carry a 10 pound chain and lock, a 3 ounce lock, or anything in between that is fine.

Me... Even when I was carrying 45 pounds of gear I considered a lock to be somewhat optional. So far I have compromised by carrying a light lock. I used a 12 ounce lock on previous trips, but plan to go to a 5 ounce one on my next trip. In small towns I consider just about any lock that requires tools to break to be adequate. In a big city I figure no lock is really adequate. On tour I mostly avoid cities and tend to get a room or stay with a host when I do stop in a bigger city.

I've written about this before.

U-Locks are designed to go around the kinds of poles used in urban areas, such as, parking meters and street signs. If such poles aren't available where you need to lock your bike, your (heavy) U-Lock becomes an unsecured bike lock or, if you are carrying a cable, a padlock. In every campground I've been in, the only way to lock a bike is with a cable around some part of the picnic table, which a U-Lock can't do.

Consider this place. Which of these poles can you get your bike close enough to for your U-Lock?



The one next to the ice machine might work but I believe it was too thick.

Do you bring a cable as well as your U-Lock?

I've never brought a cable along, but I've also never had trouble getting my bike close enough to a pole, even at campgrounds, and even with my "mini" u-lock.

Listen, if you REALLY don't want to carry a U-lock, then it's your bike to risk. Just don't post a picture of your cut lock and expect much sympathy from me. It just boggles my mind how folks will insist weight doesn't matter that much if you're hauling it on a bike, and suddenly, the area of security and the assurance you'll be able to make it home isn't worth an extra pound or so.

Raybo, in that location I would probably lean my bike against the wall and leave my lock stowed.

I have to agree that in many places I have been it would be hard to effectively use a mini u lock. I'd say that if I carried one I would take a cable too.

In these threads which seem to come up often, I always figured that the u lock proponents probably either toured in very different locales than I do or have not toured much.

One of the points I think cause some of the disagreement is the notion of what constitutes a small remote town. The example of Golden Colorado came up earlier in this thread. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think it was being used as an example of a small town. I have to say that on most of my tours a town like that would definitely not be called a small town. First of all it is close to a big city and second it isn't small itself. On the TA we considered the dividing line between a small town and a large one to be whether or not it had a comma in the population. I might stretch that a bit to maybe include a town of 1,200, but for sure a town of 10,000 is not a small town in the context of rural touring. Also if it is within 10 miles of a big town it probably should be treated like it is in a big town.