www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 52

Bicycle Theft

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

by

Shane D. Johnson

Aiden Sidebottom

Adam Thorpe

Shane D. Johnson

Aiden Sidebottom

Adam Thorpe

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 

2006-CK-WX-K003 by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions 

contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

References to specific companies, products, or services should 

not be considered an endorsement by the authors or the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to 

supplement discussion of the issues.

© 2008 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

June 2008

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Guide No. 52

Bicycle Theft

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to 

investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. Neither 

do they cover all of the technical details about how to 

implement specific responses. The guides are written for 

police—of whatever rank or assignment—who must address 

the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be most 

useful to officers who:

•	 Understand basic problem-oriented policing 

principles and methods. The guides are not primers in 

problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the 

initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods 

to analyze the problem, and means to assess the results 

of a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed 

to help police decide how best to analyze and address a 

problem they have already identified. (A companion series 

of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced 

to aid in various aspects of problem analysis and 

assessment.)

•	 Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to 

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before 

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that 

is most likely to work in your community. You should 

not blindly adopt the responses others have used; 

you must decide whether they are appropriate to your 

local situation. What is true in one place may not be 

true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work 

everywhere.
ii Bicycle Theft

•	 Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other police 

departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 

your particular problem, they should help give a broader 

view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 

you cannot implement some of these responses in your 

jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when 

police have discovered a more effective response, they 

have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, 

improving the response to the problem. (A companion 

series of Response Guides has been produced to help you 

understand how commonly-used police responses work 

on a variety of problems.) 

•	 Understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 

research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 

summarize existing research whereas other guides 

illustrate the need for more research on that particular 

problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive 

answers to all the questions you might have about the 

problem. The research may help get you started in 

designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you 

exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the 

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest 

of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of 

relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been 

attributed to its sources. To have done so would have 

overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references 

listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most 

heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research 

on the subject. 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii

•	 Are willing to work with others to find effective 

solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot 

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. 

They must frequently implement them in partnership with 

other responsible private and public bodies including other 

government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, 

and individual citizens. An effective problem solver must 

know how to forge genuine partnerships with others 

and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making 

these partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular 

individuals or groups in the community with whom 

police might work to improve the overall response to that 

problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals 

that individuals and groups other than the police are in 

a stronger position to address problems and that police 

ought to shift some greater responsibility to them to do 

so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility 

for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this 

topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing 

philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 

strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 

and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context of 

addressing specific public safety problems. For the most part, 

the organizational strategies that can facilitate problem solving 

and police-community partnerships vary considerably and 

discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, 

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs, and police practices vary from 
iv Bicycle Theft

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere 

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware 

of research and successful practices beyond the borders of 

their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research 

literature and reported police practice, and each guide is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive, and a researcher prior to publication. The review 

process is independently managed by the COPS Office, which 

solicits the reviews. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s 

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may have 

effectively addressed a problem using responses not considered in 

these guides and your experiences and knowledge could benefit 

others. This information will be used to update the guides. If you 

wish to provide feedback and share your experiences, send your 

comments by e-mail to cops_pubs@usdoj.gov

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit 

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at 

www.popcenter.org. This web site offers free online access to:

•	 The Problem-Specific Guides series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools 

series

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing 

and related topics

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 A manual for crime analysts

•	 Online access to important police research and practices

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences 

and award programs. 
Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

While each guide has a primary author, other project 

team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 

reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 

recommending research and offering suggestions on 

matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), 

John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott 

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 

on the guides' format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Cindy Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office and 

research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal Justice 

Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne 

Fregly edited this guide.

Acknowledgments v
vi Bicycle Theft

The authors thank Derek Johnson (Dorset Police, 

England) for providing the police-recorded crime data 

analyzed for this guide, and John Kleberg (Ohio State 

University), Erik Stenemann (University of Minnesota 

Police Department), and Nicola Jones (Merseyside Police, 

England) for providing information used here.

Some of the research presented in this guide was 

conducted as part of “Bikeoff 2,” an ongoing project 

funded by Designing for the 21st Century, a joint initiative 

between the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council 

and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research 

Council.
Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Bicycle Theft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Rise of the Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Bicycle Theft Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Clearance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Recovery Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Where Does Bicycle Theft Occur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Perpetrator Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Factors Contributing to Bicycle Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The CRAVED Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Policy Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Seasonal Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Nature of Bicycle Theft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Locations and Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Current Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Contents vii
viii Bicycle Theft

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Process Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Intermediate Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Ultimate Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Responses to the Problem of Bicycle Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Locks and Locking Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Parking Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Registration and Recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Offender Detection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Bicycle Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix B: Types of Locks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 1

The Problem of Bicycle Theft

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide addresses bicycle theft, first by describing the problem 

and reviewing the factors that contribute to it. It then identifies 

a series of questions to help you analyze your local bicycle theft 

problem. Finally, it reviews responses to bicycle theft and describes 

the findings of evaluative research and operational policing. It will 

be apparent that, despite the various responses being advocated or 

implemented, there are no systematic evaluations of what works to 

reduce bicycle theft. Addressing this is important for police practice, 

as the evidence base should inform decision-making regarding 

appropriate responses. We already know a lot and this guide 

outlines how such knowledge (including a portfolio of responses) 

can usefully inform the crime-reduction enterprise. In addition, it 

identifies what information you need to better understand your local 

problem and effectively evaluate implemented responses.

This guide refers specifically to the unlawful taking of nonmotorized 

pedal cycles. Bicycle theft can be further categorized into theft of and 

theft from bicycles. Awareness of these categories is important for 

understanding your local problem. Each category covers different 

offenses demanding different responses. 

•	 Theft of bicycles describes the theft of a cycle frame and its 

components.

•	 Theft from bicycles describes the theft of components and 

accessories such as lights, seats, and wheels. As bicycles are 

of composite construction, they are particularly vulnerable to 

component theft, especially regarding “quick release” features. 
2 Bicycle Theft

Although this guide covers both forms of theft, unless 

otherwise stated, most of the research and practical examples 

focus on the prevention of theft of bicycles. This is simply 

because cyclists are more likely to report theft of bicycles to 

the police, largely to meet insurance requirements.

Bicycle theft is but one aspect of the larger set of theft- and 

vehicle-related problems that the police must address. This 

guide, however, is limited to the particular harms bicycle theft 

causes. Related problems and topics not directly addressed in 

this guide—each requiring separate analyses and responses—

include the following:

•	 Thefts of motorcycles

•	 Thefts of mopeds and scooters 

•	 Fencing of stolen property

•	 Burglary

•	 Thefts of and from motor vehicles§ 

•	 Vandalism

•	 Insurance fraud.

Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in 

this series, all of which are listed at the end of this guide. For 

the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, see 

www.popcenter.org. 

General Description of the Problem 

Bicycle theft is typically seen as a low police priority, its 

impact and magnitude often overlooked because police often 

consider incidents on a case-by-case basis. This picture is 

often misleading, however, and when viewed at the aggregate 

level, bicycle theft represents a much larger problem, one with 

harmful economic and societal effects that warrant greater 

police attention.1

§The International Crime 

Victim Survey has repeatedly 

found that the rate of car 

theft holds a strong inversely 

proportional relationship with 

the rate of bicycle theft (van 

Dijk and van Kesteren 2007).
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 3

§According to the National Bicycle 

Dealers Association, in 2006 the 

United States bicycle industry was 

estimated to be valued at $5.8 billion.

§§Gardner (1998) uses the term 

“bike-sized” to refer to the relatively 

short average urban-trip distance. 

For example, the U.S. Department 

of Transportation found that in 

metropolitan areas, 49 percent of 

all trips are shorter than 3 miles, 40 

percent are shorter than 2 miles, and 

28 percent are shorter than 1 mile.

The Rise of the Bicycle 

The bicycle has become increasingly popular as a healthier 

and environmentally friendlier mode of transport.2 In 

London, for example, cycle use has increased by 83 percent 

between 2000 and 2007.3 In the United States, between 1992 

and 2006, bicycle sales have increased from 15.3 million to 

18.2 million per year (an increase of roughly 20 percent)4, §,

illustrating an increase in cycle use there. While cycles enjoy 

the greatest share of transit options within campus towns, 

several major towns and cities such as Portland, Oregon, are 

continually improving cycling infrastructure to encourage 

cycling.5 Moreover, anticipating consumer demand, General 

Motors has developed the Flex-Fix® system,6 a retractable 

bicycle rack that is hidden in a car’s bumper. These changes 

in bicycle usage and provision have been influenced in recent 

years by the following:

•	 Increased awareness of the detrimental effect of 

automobile carbon dioxide emissions, and pursuit of air 

quality and emission reduction targets

•	 Concerns over growing traffic congestion and 

accompanying noise pollution

•	 Rising levels (and fear) of obesity and heart disease

•	 Recognition that most trips are relatively short, or 

“bike-sized” §§

•	 Savings in road maintenance and improvement of street 

infrastructure

•	 Responses to policies such as charging fees to alleviate 

traffic congestion.

Several studies suggest that fear of cycle theft may discourage 

bicycle use,7 and that many bicycle theft victims do not 

buy a replacement.8 Combating bicycle theft, therefore, is a 

necessary step toward increasing the use of this sustainable 

form of transport, an increase that unexpectedly may also 

improve cyclist safety. To elaborate, a recent international 
4 Bicycle Theft

review of programs to encourage walking and cycling found 

strong evidence indicating that as the number of cyclists 

and walkers increased, the frequency of collisions between 

those groups and motorists actually decreased. The authors 

concluded that an effective means of improving the safety 

of cyclists and walkers is therefore to increase the numbers of 

people cycling and walking.9 Despite this, little attention has 

been paid to the prevention of bicycle theft. Car theft has 

received much more attention, for example, yet according 

to data collected as part of the International Crime Victim 

Survey, for all countries for which data were available 

(including the United States), bicycle owners are far more 

likely to have their bikes stolen (4.7 percent) than car owners 

their cars (1.2 percent) and motorcyclists their motorcycles 

(1.9 percent).10 

Bicycle Theft Data

Understanding the problem of bicycle theft is hampered 

because police data typically underrepresent the problem. 

This is illustrated by data from the International Crime Victim 

Survey (2000), which show that across the 17 countries 

surveyed (including the United States), on average only 56 

percent of bicycle thefts were reported to the police. 

U.S. crime statistics are collated using both National Crime 

Victim Survey (NCVS) data from a yearly national survey, and 

data recorded by the police. Comparing the two data sources 

highlights the problem of underreporting. For example, in 

2004, bicycle theft accounted for 3.6 percent of all incidents 

of larceny (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2005), which 

equates to more than 250,000 bicycles stolen each year. 

According to an estimate from the NCVS, in 2006 the number 

of incidents of theft-of or theft-from bicycles was more 

like 1.3 million (just under 2.5 incidents per minute).§ This 

suggests that for every crime reported, another four (or more) 

may have occurred. 

§Using data collected from a range 

of sources, the Transportation 

Alternatives web site estimates 

the figure to be much higher, 

at more than 5 million per 

year (www.transalt.org/press/

magazine/965SepOct/06-7youlock.html).
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 5

Interviews with bicycle theft victims indicate that 

underreporting is largely due to victims’ belief that the police 

are not interested in bicycle theft and cannot do anything 

about catching the offender and returning the stolen bicycle.11

A further reason for an underrepresentation of the problem is 

that police departments record bicycle theft in different ways 

that, however inadvertently, may serve to conceal the full scope 

of the problem. For example, police may record a bicycle theft 

as a burglary from a residential property.

Clearance Rates

Clearance rates for bicycle theft remain consistently low. In the 

United States, 18.3 percent of incidents of larceny-theft were 

cleared by arrest,12 but this figure (which includes all categories 

of larceny) is likely to be a gross overestimate of the arrest 

rate for bicycle theft. For example, in Sweden, only 1 percent 

of bicycle thefts are cleared by arrest.13 One reason for this is 

that there typically exists little relationship between the victim 

and the offender, and hence it is difficult to identify suspects.14 

Bicycle theft is also largely a crime of stealth, or one that 

goes unnoticed or unchallenged.15 A further problem is proof 

of ownership. As will be discussed below, even when crimes 

are reported to (and recorded by) the police, the majority of 

bicycle owners cannot supply sufficient details to assist in an 

investigation. As a consequence, even when an offender is 

detained for cycle theft, if the owner cannot provide proof 

of ownership for the retrieved cycle, then the suspect may 

be released without charge and may be given the stolen bike 

on release. Addressing the proof-of-ownership problem is 

important to alleviate storage costs for recovered bikes and 

improve the process of bicycle identification, recovery, and 

reunification with legitimate owners. Attempts to address this 

are documented in the “Responses” section below.
6 Bicycle Theft

Offenders

Not all bicycles are stolen for financial gain. Some offenders 

may take a bicycle simply to get from one place to another, 

and then abandon it. Research suggests that the motivations 

of bicycle thieves can be categorized in the following way:16

•	 To joyride — those who steal any type of bicycle for 

transportation and/or enjoyment. These offenders 

generally abandon the stolen bicycle after use. Younger 

offenders (16 and under) typically fit this group.17

•	 To trade for cash — those who exploit easy 

opportunities to steal any type of bicycle and trade it for 

cash or goods (such as drugs).§

•	 To fill a request — those who steal specific types of 

bicycles to order.§§

Understanding what types of offenders steal bicycles in 

your area can inform your approach to crime prevention. 

Unfortunately, low clearance rates for this type of crime 

make it difficult to gather detailed information on active 

bicycle thieves. Available evidence does indicate, however, 

that the majority of offenders are male and below the age 

of 20.18 Moreover, an examination of the frequency with 

which bicycles are abandoned can provide useful insights into 

offenders’ motivations. For example, in a bicycle theft study in 

Ellensberg, Washington, police recovered 25 percent of stolen 

bicycles, suggesting that around 25 percent of bicycles were 

probably stolen by “joyrider” offenders.19 In a Dayton, Ohio, 

police initiative, the problem was reversed, with approximately 

80 percent of stolen bicycles being recovered, suggesting that 

many more offenses were committed for the purposes of 

transportation or enjoyment than for financial gain.20

§ Interviews with drug-addicted 

bicycle thieves in Holland found 

that bicycle theft is often a source 

of income for drug purchases (van 

Kesteren and Homburg 1995).

§§Interestingly, Nuttall (2001) 

suggests volume offenders are 

undeterred by bicycles locked 

together, and often will steal the 

attached bicycles and remove the 

chain later.
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 7

It is important to be aware that victims and offenders may 

not always represent distinct groups. For example, studies 

suggest that victims of bicycle theft sometimes either steal 

bicycles themselves to compensate for their loss, or knowingly 

buy bicycles that are themselves stolen.21 This type of pattern 

illustrates a concept referred to as a crime multiplier, whereby 

one offense leads to the commission of several others. These 

offenses may include the fencing or receiving of stolen goods. 

Thus, a single bicycle theft does not necessarily equate to one 

offense, but may lead to a series of related crimes. 

Recovery Rates 

As noted above, not all stolen bicycles are sold for financial 

gain. The police recover many of them. Nonetheless, few 

recovered bicycles are returned to their rightful owners, often 

because of the proof-of-ownership problem. Surveys indicate 

that most cyclists do not know their bicycle serial number, nor 

can they provide legal evidence of bicycle ownership, such 

as a purchase receipt.22 As a result, the police cannot return 

many recovered bikes to their owners and, instead, store 

them until they can be checked as roadworthy and donated 

to charity or sold at auction. This can occupy police time and 

storage facilities that could be better used. 

Where Does Bicycle Theft Occur?

The location of bicycle theft varies, with each location 

requiring separate analysis to best inform your response. 

Common locations include the following:

•	 In and around the victim’s home

•	 In and around the victim’s workplace

•	 In public space, such as bicycle-parking facilities

•	 At risky facilities§ like university campuses and railway 

stations.23

§See Problem Solving Tools Guide 

No. 6, Understanding Risky Facilities.
8 Bicycle Theft

Research indicates that most bicycles reported stolen are taken 

from on or near the premises of the victim’s home (including 

garages and sheds),24 or from outside of shops or recreational 

facilities.25

Bicycle theft is not limited to such locations and will vary 

across different locales. For example, a study conducted in 

Belgium reported that almost no bicycles were stolen from 

the victims’ homes.26 For this reason, careful analyses of 

bicycle theft locations are required to determine whether your 

local problem clusters around certain risky facilities.27 Two 

such facilities often cited are university campuses and transit 

system hubs.28 At university campuses, which often contain 

long-stay domiciliary parking, it is likely that there will be a 

large proportion of high-performance and expensive bicycles 

that attract bicycle thieves.29 Railway stations, although less 

common in the United States than in Europe, have similarly 

been found to attract or generate bicycle-related crime. Data 

the British Transport Police collected showed that theft and 

damage to bicycles had risen by 67 percent between 1999 and 

2005. All other forms of theft and criminal damage at railway 

stations had fallen over the same period, indicating that the 

growing problem of bicycle theft at these locations was not 

part of a more general trend.30 This has potential implications 

concerning the public use of such transit systems, as research 

indicates that victimization and fear of crime are major 

detractors from the use of public transit.31

In the United States, other types of public transit terminals 

(e.g., subway stations) may equally attract bicycle theft, and 

riders should be alert to this possibility. Public transit nodes 

may merit particular attention simply because commuters' 

routine activities mean that they are likely to park cycles in 

or around such facilities for long periods throughout the 

working day, leaving them unattended and hence vulnerable 
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 9

to theft. More generally, determining which sites account for a 

disproportionate amount of your local problem will allow you 

to better define your problem and implement a more targeted 

and effective response.

Repeat Victimization§

Unlike research concerned with other types of crime such as 

burglary,§§ few studies have considered the extent to which 

cycle-theft victims are repeatedly victimized. A Dutch survey32

found that across a range of crime types, including burglary, 

assault, and bicycle theft, victimization rates were highest 

for bicycle theft, and prior victimization was associated 

with the likelihood of further incidents of bicycle theft. 

Data generated by a small survey conducted in Melbourne, 

Australia, are also informative.33 A simple reanalysis of the 

data revealed that 30 percent of the bicycle-theft victims 

interviewed accounted for 60 percent of the crimes reported; 

that is, a small number of victims accounted for a large 

proportion of the problem. 

When police identify repeat victimization as a problem in an 

area, they can usefully focus crime reduction efforts on those 

people who have recently been victimized a number of times. 

Determining why such people are repeatedly victimized can 

provide insight about your local problem and about possible 

solutions. Thus, collecting suitable data to enable you to 

identify repeat victimization will help you to understand your 

local problem better.

§See Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 4, Analyzing Repeat Victimization.

§§See Problem-Specific Guide No. 15, 

Burglary of Retail Establishments, and 

No. 18, Burglary of Single-Family Houses.
10 Bicycle Theft

Extending this concept, research concerned with other types 

of crime such as burglary (in the United States and elsewhere) 

and vehicle crime shows that following a victimization at one 

location, not only is the same victim at an elevated risk in the 

near future, but so too are others nearby.34 This research is 

important because it provides further insights into when and 

where crimes are likely to occur. In the absence of research 

of this kind concerned with bicycle theft, we conducted an 

analysis for this guide using police data for the county of 

Dorset, England. The results were consistent with those for 

burglary and vehicle crime, indicating that when a bicycle is 

stolen from one location, further incidents are more likely 

to occur nearby and up to a distance of about 450 yards 

for a period of around 3 to 5 weeks.§ Such findings, where 

they exist, can help inform crime prevention and detection 

strategies.

Perpetrator Techniques

Offenders use a number of techniques to steal bicycles. 

The technique an offender uses will often be directly linked 

to the cyclist’s locking practices (i.e., the type of lock the 

cyclist uses and the way he or she applies it). When the bike 

is unlocked or poorly secured, little skill is required. Some 

common perpetrator techniques used to steal locked bikes are 

described here. A one-page summary of these and the locking 

techniques that cyclists can use to counteract them can also be 

found at www.bikeoff.org. 

§More details of this study are 

available from the authors upon 

request.
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 11

Lifting—Thieves lift the bike and lock over the top of the 

post to which the bike is secured. If it is a signpost, then 

the thieves may remove the sign to lift the bicycle clear. 

Sometimes the post itself is not anchored securely and can be 

lifted clear of the bike and the lock

Levering—Thieves will use the gap between the stand and 

the bike left by a loosely fitted lock to insert tools such as 

jacks or bars to lever the lock apart. Thieves will even use the 

bike frame itself as a lever by rotating it against the stand or 

other stationary object to which it is locked. Either the bike or 

the lock will break. The thief doesn’t mind which—after all, 

it’s not his or her bike!

Striking—If a cyclist locks a bicycle leaving the chain or lock 

touching the ground, thieves may use a hammer and chisel to 

split the securing chain or lock.

Unbolting—Thieves know how to undo bolts and quickrelease mechanisms. If a cyclist locks a bike by the wheel alone, 

then it may be all that is left when the cyclist returns. If a cyclist 

locks only the frame, then a thief may remove a wheel or 

wheels. In this case, if a cyclist leaves a wheel-less bike with the 

intent of picking it up later, then the thief may return before 

the cyclist returns and remove the rest of the bike.

Cutting—Thieves are known to use tin snips, bolt cutters, 

hacksaws, and angle grinders to cut their way through locks 

and chains to steal bicycles.

Picking—For locks requiring keys, thieves can insert tools 

into the keyhole itself and pick the lock open.
12 Bicycle Theft

A consistent finding is that most stolen bicycles, regardless of 

theft location, are either not locked at all or are secured using 

a lock that requires little force to break or remove.35 While 

it has been proposed that all locks can be overcome if the 

opportunity is present and the offender is suitably equipped,36

it is clear that inadequate locking practices will create a 

situation conducive for the offender, and that observing 

more-secure locking practices should, at the very least, reduce 

opportunistic crime.§

In cases where a cyclist locks only one part of the bicycle, an 

offender may exploit the opportunity to steal the rest of the 

bike (an example of such locking practice is shown below). 

At the University of Wisconsin (1991), for example, for 

22 percent of cycle thefts, only the lock and secured wheel 

remained at the crime scene.37 This is important to consider 

because research suggests that offenders often strip bikes for 

parts rather than sell them whole.38 One offender reported 

that when selling stolen bicycles, he would get 10 percent of 

the list price for a whole bike, but 25 percent of the list price 

for individual parts.39 So stealing only parts of a bike may 

require the least effort and, if the right parts are stolen, attract 

similar rewards to stealing the whole thing. 

Shane Johnson

Example of a bicycle locked using only

the front wheel.

§ Anecdotal evidence suggests 

that offenders use bolt cutters 

and nail guns, and some may even 

spray a solid lock with Freon, 

which essentially reduces it to a 

lump of ice that can be destroyed 

with the tap of a hammer (see 

Hendra 2001).
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 13

Factors Contributing to Bicycle Theft

The following section outlines factors that contribute to 

bicycle theft. Understanding these factors will help you frame 

your local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness 

measures, recognize key intervention points, and select 

appropriate responses. 

The CRAVED Bicycle 

Bicycle theft is a good example of an opportunistic crime. 

Some of the reasons for this are encapsulated by the acronym 

CRAVED, which outlines why bicycles are attractive targets 

for theft.40 Bicycles are the following: 

Concealable—Most thieves will look inconspicuous riding 

away on a stolen bicycle, which effectively makes the crime 

concealable. In addition, offenders steal many bikes from 

public places where passersby conceal the theft, as illustrated 

in the film Bike Thief, which explores cycle theft in New York 

City.§

Removable—If poorly locked, bicycles are easy to take and 

ride away. In other cases, quick-release features such as wheels 

or seat posts that are not appropriately secured require little 

effort to steal.

Available—Increased bicycle ownership and use provides 

more opportunities for theft and a greater demand for 

bicycles and replacement parts. In addition, poor locking 

practices by cyclists ensure a constant supply of available 

targets. 

§Bike Thief, Neistat Brothers, 

New York, 2001.
14 Bicycle Theft

Valuable—Bicycles are not cheap. The average cost for a 

mountain bike ranges from $330 to $400,41 with some costing 

thousands of dollars.42 In the Ellensburg study, it was found 

that police were less likely to recover expensive bikes than to 

recover cheaper ones.43

Enjoyable—Many thieves steal a bike simply because they 

want one. This may be to replace one that was stolen from 

them, or just for pleasure. Analysis of British Crime Survey 

data showed that the risk of theft for “sporty” bicycles such 

as mountain bikes or BMXs was twice as high as that for 

“ordinary” bicycles.44

Disposable—Thieves can easily sell stolen bikes, either 

“whole” or “piecemeal,” to a fence or through other outlets 

(such as online auctions). Evidence suggests many thieves 

want to sell stolen goods quickly to reap a financial profit.45

Abundant “buyer’s” markets for stolen bikes may therefore 

provide an incentive to steal. Regrettably little is known about 

the market for stolen bicycles, but the proof-of-ownership 

problem suggests few bicycles could easily be identified as 

stolen, which aids the sale of stolen bikes and reduces the risk 

of apprehension and identification. Moreover, offenders can 

disguise stolen bicycles by painting different parts, altering 

components, or scratching any property-marking etchings, 

making positive identification harder.46 One prolific offender 

reported that bicycles or parts may be stolen to order, but 

systematic evidence of this is unavailable.47 

Consideration of the CRAVED acronym can help to identify 

potential intervention points—particularly the mechanisms 

by which a proposed response is intended to work. This is 

discussed further in the “Responses” section. 
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 15

Parking 

The term “parking” refers to bicycles’ being left unattended. 

The “parking” event is described by the following 

combination of factors which influence the risk of theft: 

•	 Lock type (if any)

•	 Locking practice (how a cyclist applies a lock)

•	 Flyparking

•	 Parking furniture (what a bicycle is locked to)

•	 Parking environment (situational considerations relating to 

the site where the parking furniture is located).

Lock type. Research on motor vehicle theft48 demonstrates 

the crime-reduction effects of improved locks, particularly 

immobilizers. While it is uncommon for security features to 

be integral to bicycle design (for a welcome exception, see 

the Puma bike below), locks may reduce the vulnerability of 

parked bikes. The type of lock a cyclist uses is paramount. 

Weak locks are unlikely to deter offenders, so it is important 

to determine whether the types of locks victims of bicycle 

theft typically use could be part of the problem. For example, 

as part of the work one of the authors is conducting, visual 

audits of a series of areas in the United Kingdom revealed 

that cyclists were using locks that were of very poor quality 

and easily removable. 
16 Bicycle Theft

Puma bike with integrated lock.§

§Designed by Adam Thorpe, 

Joe Hunter, and Jens Martin 

Skibsted, the Puma bicycle 

has two integral features 

that facilitate secure parking. 

First, the bicycle can be 

folded, allowing both wheels 

and the frame to be secured. 

Second, the diagonal section 

of the bicycle frame is made 

from steel wire rather than 

metal tubing. This is so 

the wire can be detached 

from the upper part of the 

frame, threaded through the 

wheels, and then locked to 

secure the bike. If cut, the 

bicycle’s structural integrity 

is compromised, rendering 

the bicycle unusable.
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 17

By current standards, a lock is considered “secure” if it can 

withstand an attack lasting 3 minutes or more by a thief using 

readily available hand tools.§ Some robust locks are sold with 

insurance guarantees for the bicycles they secure. Different 

types of locks are vulnerable to different theft-perpetrator 

techniques. For maximum security, cyclists are advised to 

use two locks of different types. This means that a wouldbe thief must use two different tools to “break” the locks, 

thereby increasing the associated effort. Determining whether 

cyclists in your area use poor locks may inform intervention 

approaches. Appendix B lists several generic lock types that 

are readily available and currently in use.

Locking practice. Research has shown that there are 180 

possible locking configurations to secure a traditional twowheeled bicycle to a standard Sheffield or “∩” shaped bicycle

stand (a design commonly used).49 Defining “secure locking” 

as the application of an appropriate lock or locks to secure a 

bicycle’s wheels and frame to a stand, the researchers found 

that 109 of these combinations were categorized as “bad” or 

insecure, 48 as “OK” or semisecure, and just 23 as “good” or 

secure.

In the same study, observations of around 8,500 London 

bicycle-locking events found that in 87 percent of cases, 

cyclists used only one lock, 19 percent locked only their 

frame to the stand, and just 20 percent locked them in a 

way considered “secure.” Similar results have been reported 

elsewhere.50 Such findings indicate that the use of adequate 

locks alone may be insufficient to prevent bicycle theft if 

application of those locks is generally inadequate. It is hence 

wise to conduct visual audits of cyclists’ locking practices to 

see if they are locking their bikes appropriately.

§Evaluation of lock security is available 

online at www.soldsecure.com.
18 Bicycle Theft

Flyparking. Bicycles may be “flyparked,” the term coined by 

Adam Thorpe to describe the securing of bicycles to street 

furniture not intended for that purpose. Cyclists may flypark 

bicycles to railings, lampposts, parking meters, benches, 

street signs, and even trees.51 Flyparking is important for 

understanding your local problem, for several reasons. First, 

street furniture not designed for bicycle parking will not be 

fit for the purpose. For example, if a cyclist locks a bicycle to 

a signpost, it is likely that he or she will secure only one part 

of the bicycle, and in many cases the bicycle will therefore 

be easily removable. Flyparked bicycles may therefore be at 

greater risk than those secured to street furniture designed 

with crime prevention in mind.§ Indeed, in Camden, London, 

local police data indicate that of all bicycles reported stolen 

between 2004 and 2005, 72 percent were flyparked.52

Flyparking may be seen as an indicator of insufficient or 

inadequate bicycle parking provision. Provision, however, 

should not be thought of solely in terms of the number of 

parking spaces available. Research suggests that if parking 

is more than 150 feet from the destination it is intended to 

serve, then it is more likely to be underused.53

§Note that not all cycle stands 

are designed the same way, so 

care needs to be taken when 

selecting street furniture.

Examples of flyparking taken from www.bikeoff.org.
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 19

Further to the design and location of bicycle parking, 

maintenance is important. Research suggests that damaged 

or abandoned bikes or locks left around stands may signal 

offenders as to where it is safe to steal (the broken bike 

effect).§,54 Cyclists are also less likely to park their bicycle near 

damaged or abandoned bicycles or stands, which can lead to 

an increase in proximate flyparking. For these reasons, it is 

worth reviewing bicycle parking facilities in your area to see if 

they are being properly maintained. Where they are not may 

suggest a point for intervention. 

Parking furniture. In public spaces, cyclists may park 

bicycles against a bicycle stand designed and provided for 

that purpose. These stands typically offer greater security. 

There are numerous stand designs available for installation. 

Choosing the appropriate type of bicycle-parking furniture 

requires accurate understanding of the local context of use

and abuse. When considering parking facilities or reviewing 

the adequacy of those currently provided, there are many 

factors that you should consider (e.g., type and design of 

stand, provisions for short- and long-stay users, location, and 

interstand spacing). Instead of listing here all the factors that 

you might consider, the authors recommend interested readers 

review a series of standards that summarize what current 

research suggests are important, available at www.bikeoff.org. 

§This refers to the similar effect proposed in the broken windows theory 

(Kelling and Wilson 1982).
20 Bicycle Theft

Parking environment. Parking environment describes the 

context surrounding the bike-parking furniture provided, 

including considerations such as the following:

•	 Access

•	 Length of stay

•	 Lighting

•	 Surveillance

•	 Guardianship§

•	 Signage regarding appropriate use of the facility and 

locking practices

•	 Maintenance and servicing.

Bicycle theft-prevention measures may include alterations 

or adaptations to any of these features of the wider parking 

environment. Routine Activity Theory55 and the associated 

crime triangle, which consider how the convergence in time 

and space of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the 

absence of capable guardians influence the likelihood of 

crime, may provide a useful framework for analyzing the likely 

contribution of these different factors and how you could 

manipulate them. 

For example, ensuring that supply of bicycle parking meets 

demand (in terms of location, number of spaces, and level 

of security) means that suitable targets may be reduced (e.g., 

fewer flyparked bicycles), and police agencies can better target 

crime-prevention measures and promote good locking practice 

(as well as potentially save time removing bikes that are parked 

where they shouldn’t be!). The provision of appropriate 

bicycle parking does not rest solely with the police, but rather 

with town planners, architects, and related agencies. Planning 

for the provision and installation of bicycle parking therefore 

requires consultation with such parties. 

§Zhang, Messner, and Liu (2007) 

found a lack of guardianship around 

the home significantly increased the 

risk of bicycle theft in urban China. 
The Problem of Bicycle Theft 21

Policy Changes 

Policy changes (government or otherwise) can affect cycle 

use and the opportunities for bicycle theft. For example, to 

encourage cycling in New York City, around 500 bike racks 

are being installed per year as part of the city’s plan to have 

600 kilometers of bike lanes operational by 2009.56 Policydriven measures such as traffic congestion fees, recently 

implemented in London to reduce the number of cars on 

the road, may increase cycle use and hence the population at 

risk of theft. Such measures are currently being discussed as 

possibilities for use in U.S. cities.57

As a different kind of example, a U.K. rail provider has 

prohibited bicycles from being taken on board trains, 

which may result in an increase in cycle parking (including 

flyparking, if demand outstrips provision) at train stations, 

and hence increased opportunities for cycle theft. Conversely, 

certain buses are now fitted with bicycle racks to encourage 

the use of cycles along with bus transport. Moreover, many 

communities have invested heavily in bicycle paths to promote 

cycling and reduce automobile dependency.58 Awareness of 

such measures and anticipation of the potential effects on 

crime may assist in proactive bicycle-theft prevention. 
22 Bicycle Theft

Seasonal Effects

Bicycle use and bicycle theft can exhibit strong seasonal 

patterns, depending on the particular area and users.59 In 

the United States, bicycle theft generally peaks during the 

warmer months of June, July, and August, with usage in 

August almost doubling that in December.60 It is important, 

however, to be aware of local differences in understanding 

your local problem. For example, the university town 

of Cambridge, England, where cycling is very popular, 

witnessed a large peak in bicycle theft in October, which 

exceeded that expected on the basis of general seasonal 

trends.61 This rise coincided with the start of term for 

students at the University of Cambridge. Similar patterns are 

observed at U.S. universities.62 You can gain knowledge of 

the disproportionate rate of bicycle theft in different months 

and places by analyzing local police data, and then can better 

frame an effective response in terms of where and when to 

implement a crime reduction scheme.
Understanding Your Local Problem 23

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized 

description of bicycle theft. You must combine the basic facts 

with a more specific understanding of your local problem. To 

enable you to design an effective response, you will likely need 

to analyze local data carefully. 

Your local bicycle theft problem can take many forms, and 

you will need to determine the specific nature of the problem 

to produce an effective response. It may be limited to, or a 

combination of, thefts from in or around victims’ homes; 

thefts from public spaces; or thefts from particular areas such 

as university campuses or transit hubs. 

Knowledge of the location, facilities available, and types of 

bicycles stolen will aid in identifying conditions that might 

contribute to the problem. Clues as to how thieves steal bikes 

may be apparent from locks found at the scene of thefts, 

CCTV footage, and related offenses. 

This knowledge can also help you identify who is committing 

the offenses, and why. For example, where the quantity 

of stolen cycles recovered is high, a high proportion of 

offenders are probably joyriders. Preventive efforts for 

such offenders will differ from those for offenders who sell 

bicycles on (acquisitive/volume offenders). Such analyses 

may be possible only if you systematically collect data (for 

example, it may be necessary to distinguish between burglaries 

in which bicycles are stolen and those in which they are 

not). Ensuring the systematic recording of bicycle thefts will 

allow for better analysis and subsequently better targeted 
24 Bicycle Theft

responses to your local problem. Alternatively, you may need 

to collect or identify new data sources. For example, alongside 

observational research, consulting with bicycle theft victims 

may help to reveal specific problems that you would not 

otherwise identify.

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups 

have an interest in the bicycle theft problem and should be 

considered for the contribution they might make to gathering 

information about the problem and responding to it:

•	 Elected and appointed local government officials

•	 Community planning organizations 

•	 Traffic engineering departments

•	 Street-furniture designers

•	 Bicycle clubs and networks (including bicycle theft victims)

•	 Bicycle and bicycle-part retailers

•	 Insurance companies

•	 Large employers

•	 Transport providers

•	 Large educational establishments.

Asking the Right Questions

The following are some critical questions you should ask 

when analyzing your particular bicycle theft problem, even 

if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers 

to these and other questions will help you define your local 

problem and choose the most appropriate set of responses 

later on.
Understanding Your Local Problem 25

The Nature of Bicycle Theft

•	 Are bicycle theft data recorded in a way that aids analysis of 

your local problem?

•	 What are the type and quality of locks being used?

•	 Had bicycles been locked when stolen? If so, how?

•	 Does locking practice vary by location (e.g., at home and 

public spaces)?

•	 To what are bicycles locked? Are bicycles stolen from 

residential locations secured to anything at all?

•	 What happens to bicycles once they are stolen? Are they 

sold illegally? If so, who is buying them? Are they stripped 

for parts? Are they abandoned?

•	 What perpetrator techniques are common? Do they differ 

across locations?

•	 What current preventive measures are ineffective? (See 

“Measuring Your Effectiveness” below).

•	 How soon are recovered bicycles found? 

•	 How damaged are recovered bicycles?

•	 How many bicycle thefts are unreported, and why? 

•	 How concerned is the local community about stolen 

bicycles?

•	 What types of bicycles are thieves stealing (a standard 

typology such as the one below may help in answering this)?

A typology of bicycles (www.bikeoff.org).
26 Bicycle Theft

Locations and Times

•	 Where is your local bicycle theft problem located? In the 

victims’ homes? Workplaces? Certain streets? On-street 

versus off-street parking? Risky facilities? General hot spots 

(such as downtown areas)?

•	 Where hot spots are identified, why are these locations at 

high risk of bicycle theft? Lack of secure parking? High 

levels of flyparking? A lack of capable guardians informed 

and empowered to act?

•	 Which places in particularly risky areas are at the greatest 

risk? On a university campus, for example, is it the gym? 

Library? Dormitories? Particular classroom buildings?

•	 How prevalent is flyparking at different locations? Are 

parking facilities sufficient for cyclist demand? Are parking 

facilities located in the wrong places?§

•	 What types of houses or apartment buildings do thieves 

target for bicycle theft? Detached or row homes? One-story, 

or two-story? Large or small apartment buildings? (Visual 

surveys of victimized houses and apartments will help you 

answer these and other questions.)§§

•	 Do theft rates vary across cycle-parking facilities? If so, 

how, and what factors might contribute?

•	 Which groups are the principal users of the facilities? 

Workers? Shoppers? Young people? Students?

•	 Is lack of natural surveillance (guardianship) a factor? 

•	 Where are recovered bicycles found?

•	 When do thefts mainly occur (time of day, day of week, 

month)? 

•	 Are there local seasonal variations in bicycle theft?

§For example, at London’s 

Walthamstow train station, secure 

cycle-parking facilities were 

installed on a site on the opposite 

side of the train track to the ticket 

office. This was accessible only via 

a bridge and resulted in commuters’ 

continuing to flypark their bicycles 

to railings outside the ticket office 

entrance, with the new facility 

being underused.

§§ Zhang, Messner, and Liu (2007) 

found that in the Chinese city 

of Tianjin, people living in row 

houses were less likely to be bike 

theft victims than those living in 

apartment buildings. 
Understanding Your Local Problem 27

Offenders§

•	 What kinds of offenders are involved? Joyriders? 

Acquisitive/drug addicts? Professionals?

•	 What do you know about the offenders? Are they local?

•	 Do offenders tend to work alone? Does this differ by 

offender category?

•	 Do bike thieves know their victims?

•	 Do bike thieves operate in the same location?

•	 Are stolen bicycles being sold in your local area?

Victims

•	 Whom does bicycle theft harm (e.g., cyclists, business 

owners)? 

•	 What is known about bicycle theft victims (e.g., their 

routine activities, demographics, cycle use, prior 

victimization)? What forums are available to glean this 

information and engage with victims? 

•	 What form of transportation do victims use after thieves 

steal their bicycles? Do they buy a new bicycle? Use a 

different form of transportation?

•	 Does victimization change a victim’s cycle-related 

behavior? Locking practice? Parking location?

•	 Do cyclists see publicity regarding secure cycle practice? 

If so, where? Do they think current publicity is useful?

•	 Under what circumstances do thefts occur? Is victim 

behavior a contributory factor, such as leaving bicycles 

unsecured and visible/accessible?

§See Problem-Solving Tool Guide 

No. 3, Using Offender Interviews To 

Inform Police Problem-Solving.
28 Bicycle Theft

Current Responses

•	 What types of bicycle-parking facilities are available? Are 

they maintained?

•	 Is there an active bicycle registration procedure? What 

percentage of reported stolen bicycles are registered?

•	 Is anything being done about abandoned bicycles (the 

“broken bike effect”)?

•	 Is anything being done about flyparked bicycles?

•	 What proportion of stolen bicycles are recovered?

•	 What proportion of recovered bicycles are returned to their 

rightful owners?

•	 What proportion of offenses result in an arrest?

•	 What are the typical legal consequences for convicted 

bicycle thieves? 

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify 

your responses if they are not producing the intended 

results. You should take measures of your problem before you 

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem 

is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they 

have been effective. All measures should be taken in both 

the target area and the surrounding area to provide you with 

control data against which to compare your intervention data. 

For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see 

the Problem-Solving Tools Series guide, Assessing Responses to 

Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.
Understanding Your Local Problem 29

The types of measures considered will depend on the 

particular problem to be tackled and the type of intervention 

to be implemented. For example, if part of the aim of an 

intervention is to change cyclists’ locking practices, then 

in addition to measuring what was implemented (process 

measures) and any changes in bike theft rates (outcome 

measures), a useful intermediate measure would be the degree 

to which cyclists’ locking practices have changed as a result of 

intervention. If the locking practices do not change over time, 

then you cannot attribute any reduction in crime observed to 

locking practices. Only by measuring changes in this type of 

behavior would you be able to come to such conclusions and 

understand what it was that led to the (un)desired outcomes.

To measure potential success, you should establish the 

following measures.

Process Measures 

•	 What was implemented?

•	 Where was it implemented?

•	 When was it implemented, and with what intensity (e.g., 

how many stands were installed, or how many bicycles 

registered with a registration scheme)?

•	 Which stakeholders were involved in implementation? Did 

they achieve their specified objectives?

•	 If publicity was used (e.g., to encourage cyclists to lock 

their bikes more securely), then how was the information 

communicated (e.g., posters, news articles, radio 

broadcasts)? How widely was it distributed?
30 Bicycle Theft

Intermediate Outcome Measures

•	 Increased use of bike-parking facilities

•	 Degree to which any publicity used reached the target 

audience (e.g., measured by a cyclist survey relating to the 

implemented response) 

•	 Improvements in cyclists’ locking practices 

•	 Reductions in flyparking

•	 Reductions in the number of unoccupied stands in public 

places

•	 Reductions in the number of abandoned bikes found in 

parking facilities

•	 Reductions in the number of calls to remove damaged or 

abandoned bikes

•	 Reductions in the number of damaged, abandoned locks

•	 Increased reporting of thefts to police (if bicycle theft is 

heavily underreported)

•	 Changes in perpetrator techniques 

•	 Some types of intervention may encourage cycle retailers 

to report useful information, and so you should consider 

changes in information flow when relevant. Although 

there may be no legal duty for retailers to contact the 

police about damaged or stolen cycles, they may be able 

to provide a rich source of data concerning your local 

problem, including who is stealing the bicycles or why they 

may be targeting particular types of bike. 
Understanding Your Local Problem 31

Ultimate Outcome Measures

•	 Reduced theft reports to police 

•	 Reduced theft reports to place managers (e.g., university 

officials or apartment managers)

•	 More favorable perceptions of safety/security among bike 

users

•	 Reductions in repeat victimization

•	 Increases in the number of bicycles recovered

•	 Increases in the number of recovered bicycles that are 

returned to their rightful owners

•	 Increases or reductions in the number of bicycles stolen 

in nearby areas (Bicycle theft may be displaced, causing a 

rise in nearby areas or facilities or, conversely, a diffusion 

of benefits may occur, whereby bicycle theft is reduced in 

surrounding areas or facilities)

•	 Improvements in victim perception of police handling of 

bicycle theft (measured by victim surveys in relation to 

implemented responses)

•	 Reduced value of reported stolen bicycles (which might 

indicate that more-valuable bicycles are being better 

protected).
32 Bicycle Theft

One potential problem with using crimes reported to the 

police as a measure of the effectiveness of interventions 

concerns the underreporting discussed earlier. For example, 

it is possible that following police intervention or a publicity 

campaign, victims will be more likely to report crimes to the 

police. On the one hand, this is a good thing and will facilitate 

a better understanding of the crime problem. On the other, it 

may create the illusion that bicycle theft has increased, when 

the reality may be that it has not (it may even have decreased). 

Instead, the intervention activity has led to an increase in 

victims’ willingness and likelihood to report crimes to the 

police. Two ways of examining this issue are as follows:

1. Ask victims who report bicycle theft if they are aware 

of any interventions. If they are, ask if they would have 

reported the crime if they had not been. While imperfect, 

this approach may provide some indication of the extent 

to which an intervention has influenced reporting levels.

2. Try to identify potential parallel reporting measures. For 

example, for some time before intervention (to establish 

a baseline reporting rate), it may be possible to conduct 

surveys in local bicycle shops to find out how frequently 

customers have mentioned that their bicycles (or cycle 

components) have been stolen. If you ask bicycle 

shop staff to record such information, then you may 

persuade them to keep details of reports made. Such 

an exercise may be beneficial for reasons other than the 

evaluation of interventions. For instance, it may provide 

useful intelligence on related criminal activity and, by 

demonstrating that police consider bike theft an important 

issue, enhance community relations.
Responses to the Problem of Bicycle Theft 33

Responses to the Problem of 

Bicycle Theft

Analysis of your local problem should give you a better 

understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you 

have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline 

for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible 

responses to address the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation 

of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These 

strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and 

police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your 

community’s problem. It is critical that you tailor responses 

to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response 

based on reliable data analysis. In most cases, an effective 

strategy will involve implementing several different responses. 

Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in 

reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to 

considering solely what the police can do; carefully consider 

whether others in your community share responsibility for the 

problem and can help police better respond to it. (For more 

detailed information on shifting and sharing responsibility, 

see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for 

Public Safety Problems.) 

What follows is intended to provide an overview of the 

types of intervention that have been implemented to reduce 

bicycle theft, the crime reduction mechanisms through which 

they could operate, and the lessons associated with their 

implementation. This should help you consider what might be 

appropriate in your area and help identify some of the issues 

associated with the implementation of such interventions. 

In some cases, the responses discussed may not have been 

subjected to rigorous evaluation, but are included to illustrate 

the range of tactics possible.
34 Bicycle Theft

Locks and Locking Practices

1. Educating the public about the use of effective 

bicycle locks and locking practices. Of paramount 

importance for any strategy to reduce bicycle theft is 

increasing the awareness of, and providing the opportunity 

for, secure locking practice, whereby cyclists lock a bicycle’s 

wheels and frame to appropriate parking furniture. It is 

important to ensure cyclists know what types of locks 

are available, which of those are recommended, and why. 

The security offered by different locks depends on how 

the lock is used, what it is locked to, and whether bicycle 

components are secured with quick-release fittings. It 

is recommended that cyclists use two locks of different 

types (and secure each to a wheel and the frame), as this 

will defend the secured bicycle against multiple theft 

techniques. For example, if a cyclist uses both a D lock 

and a chain lock, then a thief must apply both “levering” 

and “cutting” or “striking” to free the secured bicycle. 

Engaging with local cycle retailers and other relevant 

stakeholders can alert cyclists to which locks are best, 

where to get them, and how to use them effectively. In 

addition, the use of publicity at parking facilities may have 

a beneficial effect.§

 

§See Response Guide No. 5, Crime 

Prevention Publicity Campaigns.
Responses to the Problem of Bicycle Theft 35

A number of initiatives have been implemented that include 

publicity campaigns as part of a range of activities designed 

to reduce bicycle theft. For example, in response to a large 

bicycle-theft problem in Leuven, Belgium, a multitactic 

initiative was implemented in a collaboration among the 

police, university, and relevant municipal authorities. One 

element of this initiative involved publicity designed to 

educate cyclists. In particular, a targeted publicity campaign titled 

“Lock it or lose it” involved attaching cards to inadequately 

locked bikes, informing cyclists of how best to secure them. 

Leuven authorities claimed that, compared with the previous 

year, there was a 19 percent reduction in recorded bicycle 

theft during the first 6 months of the program.63 

In a more recent study, researchers analyzed the effect 

of (directly targeted) publicity alone on cyclists’ behavior. 

Between March and July 2006, cyclists’ locking practices 

were observed at five bicycle parking sites across central 

London.64 The observations focused on what types of locks 

were used, what parts of the bicycle were secured (one wheel, 

two wheels, frame, etc.), and what the bicycles were locked to 

(e.g., cycle stands, other street furniture). To evaluate cyclists’ 

locking practices before the introduction of publicity, a 

typology of bad, OK, and good locking practice was devised. 

Cyclists’ locking practices were then observed and logged at 

each site once a week for 3 weeks in March 2006. 

In the first week of April, stickers that promoted secure 

(good) locking practices were placed in prominent positions 

on every bike stand at four of the sites. Placing the stickers on 

the stands themselves meant that cyclists would be likely to 

see the advice exactly at the point of securing their bicycles. 

Stickers were not used at the fifth site, so that any changes 

in locking practices where stickers were not used could be 

compared with those at places where they were. 
36 Bicycle Theft

The stickers used were brightly colored to attract cyclists’ 

attention and, in addition to a short advisory tag line, 

contained a clear illustration of good locking practice. 

Depending on your local area, the use of illustrations may 

be more effective given that the intended audience may not 

necessarily all be able to read the same language.§ Moreover, 

a carefully designed image may convey the intended message 

more powerfully. The sticker used is shown below. 

Following the introduction of the stickers, researchers again 

observed locking practices at the five sites. The followup observations indicated that, compared with changes in 

locking practices at the control site, at those sites where 

stickers were used, bad locking practices decreased while 

good locking practices increased. While this intervention’s 

impact on bicycle theft is unknown, the study indicates that 

publicity can influence cyclists’ behavior, and this represents 

an intermediate outcome of a program that is inexpensive and 

easy to implement.

A secure-locking-advice sticker used in London (www.bikeoff.org).

§For a broader discussion of 

language barriers and police 

practice, see Shah, Rahman, and 

Khashu (2007).
Responses to the Problem of Bicycle Theft 37

If analysis of your local problem indicates that the victims 

are a particular group, such as university students or 

schoolchildren, then any publicity campaign needs to be 

tailored to reach, and be applicable to, that group. In South 

Australia, for example, a police education program was set 

up in local schools and youth groups warning them of the 

increased risks associated with leaving bicycles unsecured. To 

inform adults, however, police used current Neighborhood 

Watch programs to raise awareness of the same risks.65

Similarly, the University of Minnesota Police Department 

(UMPD) used a series of online media sources to best reach 

their intended audience, university students.66

Parking Facilities

2. Reducing flyparking. Flyparking (e.g., locking cycles to 

trees or street furniture) is common and can contribute to 

your local crime problem simply because flyparked bicycles 

are generally less secure than those locked to purpose-built 

facilities. Reducing flyparking can be achieved by adding 

additional appropriate facilities (see next section), but in 

some cases other effort may be required. 

At the University of Minnesota, flyparking was identified as an 

issue, and a “booting” intervention was implemented to tackle 

the problem. Coordinated by the UMPD, during the first 2 

weeks of May, police and two student security monitors issue 

warnings to cyclists who flypark bicycles. Thereafter, they fine 

owners of flyparked bicycles $34. Then they “boot”—lock 

with a bright orange U-lock—flyparked bicycles, and instruct 

their owners to contact a student monitor so that they can pay 

a fine to have the lock removed. The UMPD suggests that 

bicycle theft has fallen from around 350 incidents per year 

before intervention to fewer than 150 per year for the 2-year 

period afterward.67
38 Bicycle Theft

An example of a bicycle flyparked to a tree.

John Kleberg

Further benefits of patrolling the campus this way are that 

student monitors act as capable guardians against crime, and 

actively engage with potential victims whose current parking 

practice is increasing their risk of bicycle theft victimization. 

Moreover, if abandoned bikes can be identified and removed 

as part of a strategy of this kind, it can reduce unwanted 

environmental signals that may encourage offending and 

discourage cycle use. 
Responses to the Problem of Bicycle Theft 39

3. Improving parking furniture. The design and type of 

bicycle-parking furniture used is important not only from 

the perspective of how secure it is, but also because it 

can influence cyclists’ locking practices. For example, for 

cyclists with only one lock, the design of the common 

Sheffield stand does not encourage them to lock the 

frame and both wheels (as recommended). An alternative, 

designed with secure locking practice in mind, is the M 

stand. The M design removes the opportunity for cyclists 

to lock the crossbar to the stand, forcing the user to apply 

a more effective locking practice, such as securing both the 

wheels and frame. 

A recent evaluation examined the impact of bicycle stands 

such as those shown above on cyclists’ locking practices.68

Before intervention, researchers observed locking practices for 

6 months at one site in central London. During this time, the 

only stands to which cyclists could lock their bicycles were of 

the traditional Sheffield design. After establishing a profile of 

locking practice before intervention, six new prototype stands, 

each designed to promote more-secure locking practices, were 

installed at the site. Following installation, researchers again 

observed locking practices. Analysis revealed that locking 

practices were significantly better for the new stands compared 

with the Sheffield stands (e.g., cyclists were more likely to 

lock the frame and both wheels), irrespective of the particular 

designs, although some designs appeared to encourage 

better locking practice more than others. Researchers did not 

measure this intervention’s impact on bicycle theft, but the 

study clearly indicates that changes in the parking environment 

can influence cyclists’ behavior in a way that increases the 

effort associated with bicycle theft. This represents an 

intermediate outcome of the scheme.
40 Bicycle Theft

Sheffield stands make it difficult to lock the frame and 

both wheels with one lock.

John Kleberg

M stand, which encourages secure locking practice 

(www.bikeoff.org).
Responses to the Problem of Bicycle Theft 41

The design or type of bicycle-parking furniture will be a 

particular issue in towns and cities where improvements 

in cycling facilities are under way, but is unlikely to be the 

responsibility of the police alone. It is therefore essential to 

work alongside stakeholders who have the necessary capacity 

to install appropriate bicycle-parking furniture, if the response 

to the local problem requires it. 

4. Increasing guardianship. While natural surveillance 

may increase the visibility of bicycle theft, intervention 

by passersby is not guaranteed. Similarly, CCTV does 

not guarantee bikes’ security, nor will it necessarily act 

as a suitable deterrent (for more information on CCTV 

generally, see Response Guide No. 4, Video Surveillance 

of Public Places).§ Informed, empowered, and motivated 

guardians such as security guards or other people with 

an ownership claim to the facility may provide effective 

guardianship, however.

For example, bike-rental facilities§§ or bicycle repair shops may 

be located at parking sites that would benefit from increased 

guardianship. Such facilities exist in several European cities 

(e.g., Leiden, Holland), although no published data are 

available to demonstrate their impact on bicycle theft. In SintNiklass, Belgium, a supervised bicycle shed was put up at the 

train station, and cyclists must subscribe to use the facility. A 

report suggests that over a 1-year period, no one has stolen 

a cycle from the facility, but there is, of course, an ongoing 

financial cost to staff this program.69

§In a project conducted in London, 

Thorpe (2007) found that on a site 

covered by three separate CCTV 

cameras, on average, thieves stole one 

bicycle per week. Moreover, over a 

6-month period, police apprehended 

no thieves using this footage.

§§ Mayor Richard Daley is reportedly 

considering implementing a bike-rental 

system in Chicago similar to the selfservice programs found in Paris 

(www.citymayors.com/news/

metronews_americas.html).
42 Bicycle Theft

Registration and Recovery 

5. Using traditional bicycle-registration programs.

Bicycle registration schemes could reduce cycle theft in 

several ways. Cycle registration would make it easier to 

identify stolen bikes and to identify their rightful owners. 

It may also serve to deter bike thieves by making registered 

bikes harder to dispose of (e.g., sell).§

In Appleton, Wisconsin, a registration program was 

implemented as early as 1972. A total of 17,000 bikes were 

registered, and the police adopted an enforcement strategy 

that involved constructing a “hot” bike list and monitoring 

the serial numbers of bicycles parked in racks at junior high 

schools. They recovered 10 stolen bikes in this way and gained 

15 convictions. Unfortunately, it is unclear from the published 

report over what period active enforcement took place, how 

intense it was, and whether there was an impact on bicycle 

theft.70 

In Portsmouth, England, a problem-oriented policing project 

titled “Operation Mullion” aimed to reduce, among other 

things, bicycle thefts at a local school.71 In conjunction with 

the local media and council, a bicycle-marking program was 

implemented at the school and in the surrounding area in the 

form of road shows. Bicycles were marked using ultraviolet 

pens or acid etchings, and a 24/7 telephone database was 

launched to enable cyclists to log details about themselves and 

their bikes. Though such measures were part of a package of 

responses, assessment indicated that reported cycle thefts at 

the school decreased by 39 percent in the year following the 

marking program. In addition, there was anecdotal evidence 

of a diffusion of benefits, whereby schoolchildren were taking the 

ultraviolet pens home and marking other property. 

§ Car registration has been 

mandatory in most countries for 

some time, so a consideration of 

car registration’s effectiveness may 

be instructive. In reviewing the 

evidence, Webb (2005) concludes 

that registration programs’ potential 

effects on crime have been hampered 

by problems that include database 

inaccuracies and inadequate 

enforcement. It is possible that 

bicycle registration programs could 

experience similar problems without 

adequate consideration given to 

their implementation. Important to 

this kind of program are coverage 

and continuity. If records are not 

maintained or coverage is limited, 

then such programs are unlikely to 

have positive effects.
Responses to the Problem of Bicycle Theft 43

At Tufts University (Massachusetts), police implemented a 

sting operation to try to catch offenders involved in what was 

thought to be an organized bicycle-theft group. The operation 

resulted in four arrests.72 These arrests were possible only 

because the police could identify the stolen bicycles’ rightful 

owners. 

In Dayton, 5,000 cycles were registered in 1998. Compared 

with the 2 previous years, police returned around twice as 

many recovered bicycles (38 percent) to their owners. Similarly, 

in Eugene, Oregon, police recovered 14 percent of stolen 

bikes that had been marked, compared with 5 percent of those 

stolen unmarked. In Cambridge, of the approximate 1,500 

cycles police recover annually, they return about 300 to their 

owners. To increase the recovery rate, police post pictures of 

recovered cycles on a police web site.73 

These reports suggest that registration programs may 

particularly help in returning recovered bicycles to their 

rightful owners. This can be useful for several reasons: it 

can reduce the number of recovered bikes that police must 

store (and investigate); it may reduce the cost of crime to the 

victims, as they will not have to replace recovered bicycles 

(unless they are damaged); and it can be a good public 

relations exercise in that the community can see that the police 

are doing something about the problem.

A potential shortcoming with cycle registration programs is 

that they are unlikely to prevent theft from cycles, as only the 

bicycle’s frame is typically marked. Thus, if your local problem 

is not theft of bicycles, then cycle registration programs are 

unlikely to help. In addition, bicycle theft will be prevented 

only if offenders are aware of the program. Offenders will 

usually be in a hurry to steal a bike, and may consequently fail 

to notice bike markings that indicate the owner has registered 
44 Bicycle Theft

it. The overt marking of registered bicycles, therefore, is 

important if the aim of the intervention is to prevent cycle 

theft in addition to aiding the recovery and return of stolen 

cycles.

6. Implementing an electronic tagging program. A 

more recent example of a cycle marking and registration 

program that may make such strategies simpler to 

implement uses Radio Frequency Identification Devices 

(RFID), which are also widely used in the retail sector 

for tracing stolen goods and deterring thieves. At Ohio 

State University, a program called Bug-a-BikeTM provides 

cyclists with the opportunity to have a small RFID 

tag securely installed in the seat post of their bicycle, 

or fixed to the frame.74 Striking labels are also fixed 

to the “bugged” bicycles to warn would-be offenders. 

Participating cyclists are required to submit their details to 

a web-based registry system linked to their unique RFID 

tag. This enables the bike to be registered to the owner, 

and if stolen, the police can identify the bicycle using an 

RFID reader. 

Installing an RFID on bicycle frames is an important recent 

development that allows the bikes to be easily scanned 

and compared with a “hot list” of stolen bicycles; when 

RFID tags are installed in the seat post, the seat must be 

removed before scanning, which is likely to substantially 

reduce the practicality of the approach.75 To date, Ohio State 

University’s program has been successful in the sense that 

547 cyclists have registered their cycles, recovered bicycles 

have been returned to their owners, and students seem to 

like it.§ The latter is important, as registration programs’ 

effectiveness will be partly determined by their uptake.§§

A similar RFID program in Southend, England, has taken 

this approach one step further by implementing a stolen-

§A similar program that was 

evaluated in Cambridge showed that 

crime did fall during the intervention 

period, but as the authors of this 

study point out, interpretation of 

the findings is difficult, as police 

arrested a prolific offender during 

the evaluation period, and this arrest 

alone could have been responsible for 

the reduction observed (Bullock and 

Tilley 2003).

§§Sokol (1992) describes a program 

implemented at Georgetown 

University (Washington, D.C.) that 

provided an incentive for cyclists 

to register their bikes. Here, secure 

locks were available for loan to 

students on the condition that they 

first registered their bicycles. No 

evaluation of the program’s ultimate 

outcome exists, but the example 

illustrates a useful way of combining 

three crime-prevention responses in 

one (encouraging bicycle registration, 

providing better locks, and publicizing 

better locking practices).
Responses to the Problem of Bicycle Theft 45

market-reduction initiative.76 In this case, police provided 

RFID readers to local bicycle dealers who had agreed to check 

whether bicycles brought to them for sale or repair had been 

reported as stolen.77 Although a systematic assessment of this 

intervention’s impact on bicycle theft was unavailable at the 

time of writing,§ it illustrates the potential for new technology 

to enhance existing strategies. Potential problems with such 

interventions are that they depend on a reasonable degree of 

implementation to be effective, and that they are unlikely to 

affect the sale of stolen bicycle parts.

Offender Detection

7. Setting traps to catch bicycle thieves. In an attempt to 

detect bicycle thieves in the act, bicycles have also been 

used as “bait.” In programs implemented in Spokane, 

Washington; in Gloucester, England; in Wirral, England; 

and at the University of Toronto, police fit a bicycle with 

a covert tracking system and leave it (insecurely) locked at 

a prominent location. If the bicycle is moved, local police 

officers are alerted and can track the stolen bicycle with 

the aim of catching the offender. This type of initiative 

can also aid in intelligence-gathering. For example, tracking 

the signal could provide insight regarding the offender’s 

movements after the theft and potential locations of stolen 

goods and markets. Anecdotal evidence suggests that such 

interventions may increase arrest rates.78

Early feedback from practitioners involved in the Wirral 

program suggests that those caught stealing the bait bike are 

often prolific offenders wanted for more-serious offenses such 

as burglary. If this finding is generalizable, then the use of 

bait bikes may be a way to target prolific offenders through 

self-selection.79 To elaborate, it is generally acknowledged 

that the most committed offenders are quite versatile in their 

§ The authors of this work claim 

that, in one area, of the 2,600 

bicycles tagged, only 7 have so far 

been stolen. However, they make no 

comparison with untagged cycles, so 

it is difficult to determine whether 

the intervention has had an impact 

beyond what one would otherwise 

have expected.
46 Bicycle Theft

offending, and hence commit a mixture of both minor and 

serious crimes. The utility of the self-selection approach is 

that the successful detection of less-serious crimes (in this 

case, the theft of a bait bike) may require minimal effort 

(police involved in the Wirral scheme report that they make 

at least one arrest every day that they use their bait bike), but 

can bring to police attention offenders who may be involved 

in more-serious offenses. These may be offenders of whom 

the police were not previously aware. The approach is thus 

one way of identifying potentially serious offenders, who 

select themselves for police attention as a consequence of 

their own behavior, averting the complications of targeting 

particular offenders using more ethically dubious methods of, 

say, offender profiling.

Consultation with government agencies may be necessary 

before adopting a bait-bike intervention because Belgium 

officials, for example, were particularly concerned with 

supporting what they saw as an incitement to theft.80

Implementing such a program also requires thought about 

the evidential process. For example, would finding a person 

who had a bait bike be sufficient to convict him or her? It 

may be necessary to capture an offender on CCTV to show 

that he or she actually stole the bicycle rather than simply 

finding it abandoned, in which case the bicycle’s location 

must be in clear view of operational CCTV or reliable 

witnesses. Finally, such a response has to follow in-depth 

scanning and analysis of your local problem, as implementing 

a bicycle trap may be less effective if your problem is 

theft from bicycles, or is unlikely to be the work of prolific 

offenders.§

§ See Response Guide No. 6, Sting 

Operations.
Appendix A 47

Appendix A: 

Summary of Responses to Bicycle Theft

The table below summarizes the responses to bicycle 

theft, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, 

the conditions under which they ought to work best, and 

some factors you should consider before implementing a 

particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to 

local circumstances, and that you can justify each response 

based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy 

will involve implementing several different responses. Law 

enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing 

or solving the problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Locks and Locking Practices

1 34 Educating the 

public about the 

use of effective 

bicycle locks and 

locking practices.

Informs cyclists 

about effective 

locks and how to 

use them properly.

...cyclists are not 

currently using secure 

locks or are not 

using locks properly. 

Cyclists should be 

encouraged to use 

two or more different 

types of locks and 

secure both the frame 

and wheels.

Information needs to 

be practical and clearly 

communicated directly to 

users and other relevant 

stakeholders. Carefully 

designed graphics on bike 

stands and products may grab 

cyclist attention and work 

better than text. This type of 

publicity should be specifically 

user-targeted.

Parking Facilities

2 37 Reducing 

flyparking

Improves the 

location of 

existing public 

bike parking 

on the street; 

encourages 

cyclists to use 

secure street 

furniture rather 

than flypark.

... cyclists are 

flyparking many 

bicycles to street 

furniture or trees 

that do not provide 

adequate security.

Any relocation should meet 

cyclists’ demands, but not 

inconvenience other users of 

the space who could act as 

guardians against crime.
48 Bicycle Theft

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

3 39 Improving 

parking 

furniture.

Some facilities do 

not encourage or 

allow appropriate 

locking practices. 

If such facilities 

are replaced or 

altered, then 

locking practices 

should improve.

... it is combined 

with educational and 

promotional activities 

to inform users 

about secure locking 

practices.

May require the cooperation 

of other stakeholders, facility 

owners. Changes may affect 

other users of the space. At 

locations where large numbers 

of cycles may be left for long 

periods, such as transit hubs 

or universities, and where 

surveillance is not possible, 

enclosed bike- parking facilities 

may be advisable. Access to 

enclosed facilities should be 

restricted to registered cyclists, 

facilities should be simple to 

use and regularly maintained, 

and efforts should be made to 

limit potential misuse.

4 41 Increasing 

guardianship

Increasing formal 

guardianship may 

have a deterrent 

effect.

... it occurs in 

locations where 

guardianship is 

currently inadequate, 

and guardians with a 

sense of ownership 

of the area (e.g., 

security guards) are 

empowered and 

motivated to act.

Guardianship’s deterrent effect 

cannot be guaranteed. For 

example, increasing natural 

surveillance and/or installing 

CCTV may not guarantee 

bicycle security or have a 

deterrent effect. Alternatives 

such as locating bicycle repair 

shops (for example) at the 

entry to parking facilities may 

be worth considering.
Appendix A 49

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Registration and Recovery

5 42 Using traditional 

bicycleregistration 

schemes.

Cyclists register 

bicycles to 

establish proof 

of ownership 

so that stolen 

bikes can be 

identified, thieves 

deterred, and 

recovered bikes 

returned to their 

owners. Police can 

search for stolen 

registered cycles

...registration is 

mandatory and 

secondhand goods 

outlets ask for proof 

of ownership before 

buying bikes, or if 

police enforcement 

is possible. Optimum 

effectiveness is more 

likely if bicycles are 

registered at the point 

of sale, and thieves 

cannot remove 

registration marks.

Is unlikely to work if bikes are 

stripped for parts, as only the 

frame is typically registered. As 

an enforcement strategy, this 

is likely to require intensive 

policing unless the problem 

is highly geographically 

concentrated or other agencies 

get involved. Databases need 

to be maintained and cover a 

wide geographical area, and 

partners need to coordinate 

action. It may not prevent 

theft if offenders are unaware 

of the program. The marking 

method may affect subscription 

(e.g., some cyclists may fear 

that stamping the frame could 

damage their bike).

6 44 Implementing 

an electronic 

tagging program.

Cycles are fitted 

with unique 

Radio Frequency 

Identification 

Devices (RFID), 

and the owners’ 

details are 

recorded in 

a database to 

establish proof 

of ownership. 

Police can search 

for stolen bicycles 

using an RFID 

reader.

...RFID tags are 

installed in the bicycle 

frame, rather than in 

the seat post, which 

must be removed 

first to allow easy 

scanning using an 

RFID reader, and if 

secondhand goods 

stores in the area also 

use RFID readers to 

determine the status 

of bicycles brought 

to them.

See above.
50 Bicycle Theft

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Offender Detection

7 45 Setting traps to 

catch bicycle 

thieves

Police leave 

a cycle fitted 

with a tracking 

device (e.g., 

GPS) unsecured 

at a prominent 

location. If the 

bike is moved, 

then police will 

be alerted and can 

trace the bicycle 

with the aim 

of catching the 

thief or gathering 

intelligence 

on stolen bike 

markets.

...a small proportion 

of offenders are 

responsible for the 

majority of local 

problems, and 

operational CCTV 

covers the location 

where the cycle is left 

so that the offender 

can be caught on 

camera. Cleaning 

fingerprints off the 

bike before putting 

it out also increases 

the likelihood 

of identifying 

forensic evidence 

that could aid in 

an investigation. 

Moreover, police 

should place the 

bike in a hot spot 

on days and at times 

when bicycle theft 

is most likely. To 

reduce the likelihood 

that offenders will 

get wise to the 

intervention, the bike 

should not be used 

in the same locations 

all the time. For the 

same reason, if the 

police are to use the 

intervention for a 

prolonged period, 

then they should 

regularly change 

the bike used or its 

appearance.

The bicycle may be sold on 

quickly, so any response should 

be swift, which may require 

dedicated police resources (if 

only temporarily). Check that 

local laws permit this type of 

strategy.
Appendix B 51

Appendix B: Types of Locks

The types of locks and how cyclists use them can contribute 

to your local bicycle theft problem. Currently, a wide range 

of bicycle locks are available, each differing in (for example) 

material, intended use, and mechanism by which they are 

supposed to prevent bicycle theft. The term “secure” is 

relative, as security against bicycle theft depends not only on 

the lock, but also on the bicycle-parking furniture and the 

broader parking environment, as well as on who is trying to 

steal a bicycle, and with what resources. Hereafter, “secure” 

refers to a lock that can withstand an attack lasting 3 minutes or more 

by a thief using readily available hand tools. Some robust locks are 

sold with an insurance guarantee for the bicycle they secure. 

The user must register the bike for the insurance to be valid.

It is recommended that cyclists use two locks of different 

types because this will defend the secured bicycle against 

multiple perpetrator techniques (e.g., if a cyclist uses a D lock 

and a chain lock, then a thief must apply both “levering” and 

“cutting” or “striking” to free the secured bicycle). 

D or U lock Cable or coil lock
52 Bicycle Theft

Chain and padlock Armored cable lock

D or U lock—a D- or U-shaped steel bar that is closed at 

one end, with a removable section that a key can lock. The 

lock’s strength depends on materials and quality. Such locks 

can be vulnerable to levering but are resistant to cutting.

Cable or coil lock—a many-stranded steel cable enclosed in 

a plastic casing, with an integrated lock or looped end through 

which the user secures the shank of an additional lock. The 

cables come in various thicknesses. These locks are vulnerable 

to cutting, and thieves can easily sever them using available 

hand tools.

Chain lock—a length of chain (often fabric- or plasticcoated) combined with a securing padlock or mini-D lock. 

Chains can be very robust, though the lock’s strength 

depends on materials and quality. These locks are vulnerable 

to striking if applied incorrectly. Poor-quality chain locks are 

also vulnerable to cutting with bolt croppers and pneumatic 

cutting tools.

Armored cable lock—a steel cable core covered with a series 

of rotating metal tube sections to protect the cable against 

cutting. Armored cable locks usually have an integrated 

locking device. Armored cables can be very robust, though 

the lock’s strength depends on materials and quality. These 

locks can be vulnerable to cutting with bolt croppers and 

pneumatic cutting tools.
Endnotes 53

Endnotes

Braiden (1986). 1.

Pucher and Buehler (2005). 2.

Transport for London (2007). 3.

National Bicycle Dealers Association (2007). 4.

Matthews (2007). 5.

At the time of writing, details of the Flex-Fix® 6.

system were available at media.gm.com/servlet/

GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.

gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.

do?domain=82&docid=29377

Davies, Emmerson, and Gardner (1998); Replogle 7.

(1984); Rietveld and Koetse (2003).

Mercat and Heran (2003). 8.

Jacobsen (2003). 9.

van Kesteren, Mayhew, and Nieuwbeerta (2000). 10.

Bryan-Brown and Saville (1997). 11.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2005). 12.

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention 13.

(2007). www.bra.se/extra/pod/?action=pod_

show&id=38&module_instance=11

Svensson (2002). 14.

For evidence of this, view the films Bike Thief, by 15.

the Neistat Brothers, and Stop Nicking My Bike, by 

Dominic Waugh. Available at www.youtube.com/

watch?v=5TNTq3nhuh0

Bullock and Tilley (2003); Roe and Olivero (1993). 16.

Challinger (1986); Sokol (1992). 17.

Birmingham Community Safety Partnership, U.K. (2007). 18.

Roe and Olivero (1993). 19.

Dayton Police Department (1999). 20.

van Dijk (1994); Weijers (1992). 21.

Loder and Bayly Ltd. (1986). 22.
54 Bicycle Theft

Eck, Clarke, and Guerette (2007). 23.

Loder and Bayly Ltd. (1986); Mercat and Heran (2003); 24.

Nicholas et al. (2005); Zhang, Messner, and Liu (2007). 

Challinger (1986). 25.

van Limbergen, Walgrave, and Dekegel (1996). 26.

Eck, Clarke, and Guerette (2007). 27.

Replogle (1984). 28.

Dayton Police Department (1999). 29.

Department for Transport (2006). 30.

Rietveld and Koetse (2003). 31.

Wittebrood and Nieuwbeerta (2000). 32.

Loder and Bayly Ltd. (1986). 33.

Johnson et al. (2007). 34.

Bryan-Brown and Saville (1997); Loder and Bayly Ltd. 35.

(1986); Mercat and Heran (2003); Roe and Olivero (1993).

Fennelly et al. (1992). 36.

Sokol (1992). 37.

Loder and Bayly Ltd. (1986). 38.

Malek (2000). 39.

Clarke (1999). 40.

National Bicycle Dealers Association website: 41.

www.nbda.com. Accessed June 18, 2007.

Londono (2007). 42.

Roe and Olivero (1993). 43.

Bryan-Brown and Saville (1997). 44.

Stevenson and Forsythe (1998). 45.

Sokol (1992). 46.

Malek (2000). 47.

Webb (2005). 48.

Thorpe (2007). 49.

Mercat and Heran (2003). 50.

Bryan-Brown and Saville (1997); Mercat and Heran 51.

(2003); Gamman, Thorpe, and Willcocks (2004).

London Metropolitan Police (2006), unpublished Camden 52.

bike theft report. 
Endnotes 55

Department of the Environment, Transport, and the 53.

Regions (1997). 

Gamman, Thorpe, and Willcocks (2004). 54.

Cohen and Felson (1979). 55.

Matthews (2007). 56.

PlaNYC (2006). 57.

Sirkis (2000). 58.

Mercat and Heran (2003); Hird and Ruparel (2007); Sokol 59.

(1992).

U.S. Department of Transportation (2002). 60.

Hird and Ruperal (2007). 61.

Sokol (1992). 62.

van Limbergen, Walgrave, and Dekegel (1996). 63.

Sidebottom, Thorpe, and Johnson (in preparation). 64.

Adam (1992). 65.

Cook (2006). 66.

Cook (2006). 67.

Sidebottom, Thorpe, and Johnson (in preparation). 68.

van Limbergen, Walgrave, and Dekegel (1996). 69.

Frailing (1974). 70.

Hampshire Constabulary (2006). 71.

Fennelly et al. (1992). 72.

Nuttall (2001). 73.

Kleberg (2002; 2006). 74.

Mercat and Heran (2003). 75.

Sutton, Schneider, and Hetherington (2001). 76.

Personal communication with John McIntyre of Trovan, 77.

30th April 2007.

Birchard (2007); The Gloucester Citizen (2006). 78.

Chenery, Henshaw, and Pease (1999). 79.

van Limbergen, Walgrave, and Dekegel (1996). 80.

References 57

References

Adam, J. “Bicycle Theft in South Australia.” Proceedings of 

the National Bicycle Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 

March 1992. 

Birchard, K., “Putting the Brakes on Bicycle Theft,” Chronicle 

of Higher Education 53(24) (2007):A6.

Birmingham Community Safety Partnership, U.K.. 

“Birmingham Community Safety Strategic Assessment 

2006/07,” Birmingham Community Safety Partnership, 

2007. www.birmingham-csp.org.uk/News/bcssanews

Braiden, C., “Bank Robberies and Stolen Bikes: Thoughts 

of a Street Cop,” Canadian Police College Journal 10(1) 

(1986):1–30.

Bryan-Brown, K. and T. Saville. Cycle Theft in Britain. TRL 

Report 284. Crowthorne, England: Transport Research 

Laboratory, 1997.

Bullock, K. and N. Tilley, “From Strategy to Action: The 

Development and Implementation of Problem-Oriented 

Projects,” in Crime Reduction and Problem-Oriented Policing, 

ed. K. Bullock and N. Tilley, Cullompton, England: 

Willan, 2003.

Challinger, D., “Young Bicycle Thieves,” in Loder and Bayly, 

Ltd., Bicycle Theft Research Project: A Report to the State Bicycle 

Committee. Victoria, Australia: Ministry of Transport, 1986. 

Chenery, S., C. Henshaw, and K. Pease, Illegal Parking in 

Disabled Bays: A Means of Offender Targeting. Policing and 

Reducing Crime Briefing Note 1/99. London: Home 

Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, 1999.
58 Bicycle Theft

Clarke, R., Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating, and 

Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods. Police Research Series 

Paper 112. London: Home Office Policing and Reducing 

Crime Unit, 1999.

Clarke, R., and J. Eck. Understanding Risky Facilities. ProblemOriented Guides for Police Series, Problem-Solving Tools 

No. 6. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2007. 

Cohen, L., and F. Felson, “Social Change and CrimeRate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach,” American 

Sociological Review 44(4)(1979):588–608

Cook, E.. “University of Minnesota Patrol Members Prepare 

To Start Booting Bikes.” Minnesota Daily, April 18, 2006. 

Davies, D., P. Emmerson, and G. Gardner . Achieving the Aims 

of the National Cycling Strategy: Summary of TRL Research.

Crowthorne, England: Transport Research Laboratory, 

1998.

Dayton Police Department. Operation Registration: The Use of the 

SARA Model in Implementing a Bicycle Registration Program,

Dayton Police Department, 1999. Submission for the 

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing.

Department for Transport. “Transport Trends 2006: Section 

7: Safety,” 2006. www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412

/190425/220778/Trends_2006_FINAL_v5.pdf

Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions. 

Supply and Demand for Cycle Parking, Department of the 

Environment, Transport, and the Regions: 1997. 

www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/

cycle/07_97/index.htm
References 59

Eck, J., R. Clarke, and R. Guerette. “Risky Facilities: Crime 

Concentration in Homogeneous Sets of Facilities,” in 

Imagination for Crime Prevention: Essays in Honor of Ken Pease,

ed. G. Farrell, K. Bowers, s. Johnson, and M. Townsley, 

Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 21. Monsey (New York): 

Criminal Justice Press, 2007: 225–264

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States 2004. 

FBI, 2005. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/

property_crime/larceny-theft.html

Fennelly, L., C. Lonero, D. Neudeck, and C. Vossmer. “Bicycle 

Theft—Back to Basics,” Campus Law Enforcement Journal

22(1) (1992):37–40

Frailing, R. “Bicycle Theft—A Serious Crime,” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 43(6) (1974):7–10

Gamman, L., A. Thorpe, and M. Willcocks. “Bike Off! 

Tracking the Design Terrains of Cycle Parking: Reviewing 

Use, Misuse, and Abuse,” Crime Prevention and Community 

Safety: An International Journal 6(4) (2004):19–36

Gardner, G. “When Cities Take Bicycles Seriously,” World 

Watch (September/October) 1998:16–22

“Trap Cycle Helps Snare the Thieves.” The Gloucester Citizen,

July 19, 2006:17 

Hampshire [England] Constabulary. “Operation Mullion: 

Reducing Antisocial Behavior and Crime in and Around 

Mayfield School.” Hampshire Constabulary, 2006. 

Submission for the Tilley Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Hendra, T. “The Bicycle Thieves,” Forbes 168(7) (2001):39–44

Hird, C., and C. Ruparel. “Seasonality in Recorded Crime: 

Preliminary Findings.” Home Office Online Report, 

February 2007. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/

rdsolr0207.pdf 
60 Bicycle Theft

Jacobsen, P. “Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, 

Safer Walking and Bicycling,” Injury Prevention 9(3) (2003): 

205–209 

Johnson, S. D., W. Bernasco, K. Bowers, H. Elffers, J. 

Ratcliffe, G. Rengert, and M. Townsley, “Space-Time 

Patterns of Burglary: A Cross-National Assessment of 

Residential Burglary,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology

23(3) (2007): 201–219

Kelling, G., and J. Wilson, “Broken Windows: The Police and 

Neighborhood Safety,” Atlantic Monthly 249(3) (1982): 

29–38

Kleberg, J., “It Isn’t Just Engraving Anymore! New Approach 

To Combating Theft on Campus,” Campus Law 

Enforcement Journal 32(6) (2002):18–19 

Kleberg, J., “Bicycles Everywhere,” National Parking Association.

May: 22–24, 2006.

Loder and Bayly Ltd. Bicycle Theft Research Project: A Report to 

the State Bicycle Committee. Victoria, Australia: Ministry of 

Transport, 1986. 

Londono, E., “As Web Fuels Bike Thefts, Victims Turn 

Vigilantes,” The Washington Post, August 26, 2007: A1

Malek, N., “You Think Your Bike Is Safe? It’s Gone!” Bicycling,

July 2000: 50–58 

Matthews, K., “Cycling Gains Ground in NYC,” USA Today,

October 7, 2007.

Mercat, N., and F. Heran, “Bicycle Theft in France,” in 

Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in 

Urban Environments, ed. R. Tolley, Boca Raton, Florida.: 

CRC Press, 2003; Cambridge (England): Woodhead 

Publishing, 2003.
References 61

National Bicycle Dealers Association. Industry Overview. 

National Bicycle Dealers Association, 2007. nbda.com/

page.cfm?pageID=34

Nicholas, S., D. Povey, A. Walker, and C. Kershaw. Crime in 

England and Wales 2004/2005. London: Home Office, 

2005.

Nuttall, S. “Bringing Down Cycle Theft in Cambridge.” 

Cambridge (England): Parkside Police Station, 2001.

PlaNYC. “A Greener, Greater New York.” City of New 

York, 2006. www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/

transportation.shtml

Pucher, J., and R. Buehler, “Cycling Trends and Policies 

in Canadian Cities,” World Transport Policy and Practice

11(1):43–61.

Replogle, M., “Role of Bicycles in Public Transportation 

Access,” Transport Research Record 959 (1984): 55–62.

Rietveld, P. and M. Koetse, “Crime and Offenses in 

Transport,” in Across the Border: Building Upon a Quarter 

Century of Transport Research in the Benelux, ed. W. Dullaert, 

B. Jourquin and J. B. Polak. Antwerpen: De Boeck, 2003. 

293–321

Roe, L., and J. Olivero. “Profiles in Bicycle Theft: There 

Is a Pattern,” Journal of Security Administration 16(2) 

(1993):17–24

Shah, S., I. Rahman, and A. Khashu. Overcoming Language 

Barriers: Solutions for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 2007.

Sidebottom, A., A. Thorpe, and S. D. Johnson. “An 

Evaluation of Design-Based Interventions to Improve 

Cyclist’s Locking Practices.” (In preparation)
62 Bicycle Theft

Sirkis, A., “Bike Networking in Rio: The Challenges for 

Nonmotorized Transport in an Automobile-Dominated 

Government Culture,” Local Environment 5(1) (2000): 

83–95

Sokol, M. Bicycle Theft: Problems and Solutions. Selected Problems 

in Policing Seminar. Madison, Wisconsin: The University 

of Wisconsin Law School, 1992. 

Stevenson, R., and L. Forsythe. The Stolen Goods Market in 

New South Wales: An Interview Study with Imprisoned Burglars.

Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and 

Research, 1998.

Sutton, M., J. Schneider, and S. Hetherington, Tackling Theft 

With the Market Reduction Approach. Crime Reduction 

Research Series, Paper 8. London: Home Office, 2001.

Svensson, R., “Bicycle Theft.” Crime Trends in Sweden 

1998–2000. Stockholm, Sweden: BRA (Swedish National 

Council for Crime Prevention), 2002.

Thorpe, A. “Don’t Give Thieves an Easy Ride: A Design 

Against Crime Practice Review.” Paper presented at the 

15th Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis 

Conference, University College London, July 19, 2007.

Transport for London, “London Cycle Network,” Mayor 

of London web site, 2007. www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/

projectsandschemes/roadsandpublicspaces/3188.aspx. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Bicycle Use among Adult 

U.S. Residents. OmniStats 2(6): 1-3.Washington, D.C: 

Federal Highway Administration, 2002. Available at 

www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_02_

issue_06/pdf/entire.pdf.

van Dijk, J., “Understanding Crime Rates: On Interactions 

Between Rational Choices of Victims and Offenders,” 

British Journal of Criminology 34(2) (1994):105–121
References 63

van Dijk, J. and J. van Kesteren. Criminal Victimization in Global 

Perspective, Key Findings From the 2004–2005 International 

Crime Victim Surveys. The Hague (Netherlands): 

Ministry of Justice, Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-en 

DocumentatieCentrum, 2007.

van Kesteren, J. and G. Homburg. Fietsdiefstal: Onderzoek naar 

de dagelijkse praktijk van fietsdievn (Bicycle Theft). The Hague 

(Netherlands): Ministry of Justice, 1995.

van Kesteren, J., P. Mayhew, and P. Nieuwbeerta. Criminal 

Victimization in 17 Industrialized Countries: Key Findings from 

the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey. The Hague 

(Netherlands): Ministry of Justice, Wetenschappelijk 

Onderzoek-en DocumentatieCentrum, 2000. 

van Limbergen, K., S. Walgrave, and I. Dekegel. “Bicycle 

Repair Shops.” Promising Practices: Crime Prevention in 

Belgium: 10 Examples. Brussels (Belgium): Permanent 

Secretariat for Prevention Policy, Ministry of the Interior, 

1996.

Webb, B. “Preventing Vehicle Crime,” in Handbook of Crime 

Prevention and Community Safety, ed. N. Tille,. Cullompton, 

England: Willan Publishing, 2005. 

Weijers, H., “Government Policy for Reduction of Bicycle 

Theft in the Netherlands,” in The Bicycle: Global Perspective, 

ed. R. Boivin, J-F. Pronovost, and J. Bergeron, Montreal: 

Velo Quebec, 1992: 388–390.

Wittebrood, K. and P. Nieuwbeerta, “Criminal Victimization 

During One’s Life Course: The Effects of Previous 

Victimization and Patterns of Routine Activities,” Journal 

of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37(1) (2000):91–122

Zhang, L., S. Messner, and J. Liu, “Bicycle-Theft Victimization 

in Contemporary Urban China: A Multilevel Assessment 

of Risk and Protective Factors,” Journal of Research in 

Crime and Delinquency 44(4) (2000):406–426

About the Authors 65

About the Authors

Shane D. Johnson

Shane D. Johnson is a Reader at the UCL Jill Dando Institute 

of Crime Science, University College London. He has a 

particular interest in the spatial and temporal distribution of 

crime, crime forecasting, and design against crime. He has 

conducted work for a variety of sponsors including the Arts 

and Humanities Research Council and the Home Office, and 

currently coordinates an international research network funded 

by the British Academy. He has published more than 40 

original research papers within the fields of criminology and 

forensic psychology. Johnson holds a doctorate in psychology 

from the University of Liverpool.

Aiden Sidebottom

Aiden Sidebottom is a Research Assistant at the UCL Jill 

Dando Institute of Crime Science at University College 

London. His research interests include the application of 

evolutionary and psychological theory to crime, especially 

situational crime prevention and design against crime. Winner 

of the annual UCL Jill Dando Institute scholarship, Aiden 

holds a master of science in crime science from University 

College London and a bachelor’s degree in applied psychology 

from the University of Durham. He has recently edited 

a journal special edition concerned with environmental 

criminology and crime analysis.
66 Bicycle Theft

Adam Thorpe

Adam Thorpe is a Reader in Socially Responsive Design at 

Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, London, and 

Director of the Bikeoff Research Initiative, part of the Design 

Against Crime (DAC) Research Centre. His research activities 

are practice-based and he has contributed to the development 

of research methodologies that seek to maximize stakeholder 

value through the application of DAC principles. He also has 

a particular interest in research dissemination strategies that 

utilize market intervention to promote best DAC practice via 

product benchmarking. Current research activities include the 

“Bike Off ” research project that seeks to reduce cycle theft 

through design and specification of secure cycling products 

and environments. He is also co-founder and design partner 

of Vexed Generation Ltd Karrysafe Ltd and Broke Bitter & 

Twisted. Exhibition and retail environment design outputs 

include Vexed Generation retails spaces and numerous 

international exhibition stands and installations. Current design 

collaborations include a cycle clothing brand ‘bespoke’ with 

Transport for London and Fisher Leisure.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 67

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
68 Bicycle Theft

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. 

Anthony A. Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and 

Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos 

and Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel 

Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis 

B. Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1932582-56-8
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 69

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. 

Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. 

Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction 

Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007.

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and

Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. 

Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. 

Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007.

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, 

and Adam Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008.

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6
70 Bicycle Theft

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance 

of Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown 

and Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 71

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental 

Design in Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime 

Analysis Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Spectator Violence in Stadiums

Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Transient Encampments

Street Robbery

Fencing Stolen Property

Thefts from Cafés and Bars

Aggressive Driving

Theft of Scrap Metal

Problem-Solving Tools

Displacement

Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

Asset Forfeiture

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

•	 Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention

•	 A complete listing of other POP Guides

•	 A listing of forthcoming POP Guides

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

June 2008

e060810143

ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

www.cops.usdoj.gov