The Chainlink

http://stolenbicycleregistry.com/identidots.php

From a reliable and trusted source,  FYI.

Views: 393

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for posting this.

I can see them being useful for other sorts of commonly stolen items (like floor jacks or tools kept in garages...). I can also see a Chicago cop looking at you like you're from outer space when you try to explain this...

Excellent points on both counts, and given the years I lived in Lincoln Park, I totally agree with you about the Chicago cops. In their defense, stolen bicycles rarely take a priority because of what is generally considered to be more pressing crime.  One of the nice features of this is the deterrent factor provided by the warning decal, which complements the more discreetly place microdots.  See this for a better visual explanation: http://identidots.com/IdentiDotsInAction.aspx 

I'm trying to picture a place on my frame that does not get the crap beat out of it by other bikes in bike racks, poles or stuff to which I lock up the bike or my own stupid self as I drop the bike accidentally etc.

While I admire the idea, I wonder how much of the dot(s) can get scratched off before they lose effectiveness. And given that we can't see them without a UV light, we would not know when the dots got scratched up enough to fail.

Great questions; thanks Tony. The dots are suspended in a rugged adhesive that is essentially permanent once it has completely dried.  The benefit here is that a) it's unlikely to get torn off from wear, and 2) for a thief to remove it would take a grinder, which substantially damages the bike (or part) to the point of making it unattractive, and therefore unsellable.  Your point here is another reason why it is suggested to place the dots on multiple areas of your bike.

It's also safe to say that if you can feel the adhesive, then the dots are still in place, and functional. 

On another note, in our efforts to be responsive to customer demand we have added to the "shop" section of our site both UV light sources and microdot readers.

Hope this is helpful. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions.  Thanks.

The way I read it, this is like having an additional serial number on your bike or components.  If you are lucky enough to find your bike at a swap or on CL, this would be an additional way to ID the thing.

 

Of course all bikes have serial numbers, and cops will ask you to verify your SN if you recover your bike.  Will they take a micro-dot as seriously as a SN?  I hope so.  If your new Brooks saddle is recovered without the bike, only the dot will prove it's yours.

Oh, I thought you were a regular forum member. IdentiDots is your company. Maybe you should have bought an ad here.



Jim Millican said:

On another note, in our efforts to be responsive to customer demand we have added to the "shop" section of our site both UV light sources and microdot readers.

Hope this is helpful. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions.  Thanks.

 

 

 

I hardly think it would take a grinder to remove these.   A sharp knife should peel them neatly off without much paint damage.   If not, a little acetone or xylene should pull it off too.  The epoxy might be able to withstand the acetone or xylene but the underlying paint would be at least temporarily softened and the epoxy would lose its grip.

These dots would only work if the thief/fence didn't know they were there -security through obscurity. 

Microdots are not standardized, commonly recognized yet by bike professionals and law-enforcement, nor are they "required" like a serial number is.  A bike with the serial number removed is actually illegal -this isn't so with these dots.

Agree-- a bit puzzling that that was not made clear in the OP.

Jim, are you in communication with the stolenbicycleregistry folks? If so, a big ask-- I and others find the conecpt of offering reward money for the return of stolen bicycles to be an abomination; the way that site is set up it's presented as almost mandatory. Can you ask them to consider removing that field entirely? I have written before but not received a response.


Juan Primo said:

Oh, I thought you were a regular forum member. IdentiDots is your company. Maybe you should have bought an ad here.



Jim Millican said:

On another note, in our efforts to be responsive to customer demand we have added to the "shop" section of our site both UV light sources and microdot readers.

Hope this is helpful. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions.  Thanks.

 

 

 

All -

My apologies for the confusion regarding my position as company owner. I assure you it was not intentional and had assumed it to be more transparent. Julie and I have been in discussions about how we can each participate in helping one another, and while we haven't ruled out purchasing ad space, we are currently seeking ways to better fund future plans. In the interim she encouraged me to post on your boards with the understanding that it would not be blatant self-promotion. I believed that to be accomplished by posting an independent third party review. The intent was to simply pass information along to inform your group about another method of helping reduce bicycle theft. I will be more careful moving forward. Thank you for your understanding, and for your candid feedback.

As for the Stolen Bicycle Registry -- my interaction with them has been intentionally limited so as to preserve objectivity on their behalf. I understand your feelings, but am not certain how to convey your message any better. Let me see what I can do.

Jim, I agree here that you should have introduced yourself as the owner of the company.  If I would have seen it first I would have clarified it for everyone. It's an important fact since it was posted on a community forum. 

And although I don't disagree with the third party, unobjective review, having an affiliate agreement stated at the bottom of the review - aka you pay the registry for every identidot sold - can challenge that notion.

I've been approached many times to do product reviews.  As of now any product reviews are from individual users on the forum, not from the companies themselves, and The Chainlink doesn't benefit financially in any way. 

Jim Millican said:

All -

My apologies for the confusion regarding my position as company owner. I assure you it was not intentional and had assumed it to be more transparent. Julie and I have been in discussions about how we can each participate in helping one another, and while we haven't ruled out purchasing ad space, we are currently seeking ways to better fund future plans. In the interim she encouraged me to post on your boards with the understanding that it would not be blatant self-promotion. I believed that to be accomplished by posting an independent third party review. The intent was to simply pass information along to inform your group about another method of helping reduce bicycle theft. I will be more careful moving forward. Thank you for your understanding, and for your candid feedback.

As for the Stolen Bicycle Registry -- my interaction with them has been intentionally limited so as to preserve objectivity on their behalf. I understand your feelings, but am not certain how to convey your message any better. Let me see what I can do.

It might be too late for this bike I saw parked at my Metra station. Unsecured quick-release wheels and front and rear LED lights left on the bike.

Attachments:

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2008-2013   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service