Stolen skis

"pete devlin" wrote in message
...
In message , KMM writes

"pete devlin" wrote in message
...

This year I saw the swapped ski method fail leaving two angry people
with one useless ski each. Fortunately the thief realised his mistake
within 100yds and we found the discarded skis the next morning. Any
further and they would never have been found.

Emmm, that's a success then is it not? I never claimed it was foolproof,
just a bit of a deterrent.

Hardly a success. They were stolen. The guys were just lucky that we did
a search around a big area whilst they were down the cop shop reporting
it.

Its a success in that the thief threw them away because he had two
mismatched skis and the people involved soon had their skis back. If they
were my skis I would count the excercise as a success. Didnt stop them
lifting the skis but stopped him going down on the mountain with them.
Hassle aside, its not exactly a failure. As most cases of theft are
basically opportunistic (as proven here) its still worth doing IMO. Think
this one has been flogged to death now.

Deterrence is all you can achieve really, if a thief wants them, he'll
have them.

Agreed but it would make me ever so slightly happier knowing that some
lowlife was walking off the mountain with two odd skis. You might lose out
but so will they!

If you have to stand guard 24/7 it's not worth going.
My sarcasm was directed at the fact that most people here have skied for
years, they were splitting their skis up when the only way you could
tell skis apart was the different grain patterns!

What goes around, comes around! Only a matter of time before some marketing
monkey gets back to that one


K.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:16:41 +0000, Champ wrote:

On 24 Jan 2005 03:31:32 -0800, "Sammy" wrote:

Because by even thinking "my skis will be stolen if I don't do this"
you are spoiling your lunch and behaving like a mistrustful and fearful
person. Most undignified.

Unfashionable tho it is, I subscribe to this view. Frankly, I think
I'd rather take the small chance that my board will be stolen than
spoil every single lunch stop on the mountain.

Well yes, but he's advocating not even taking simple precautions like
splitting a pair of skis, which a) takes no effort at all and b)
doesn't ever seem to interfere with my enjoyment of a decent lunch :-)

The same reasoning leads me to not have smoke detectors in my house.

I've always resisted the idea too, although I can't quite see how this
reasoning works. If you have smoke detectors, you'er more likely to
worry about the house catching fire? Can't see it myself.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

Why don't the ski/boot manufacturers build an identification/theft deterrent
system into the skis?
I am thinking along the lines of the tamper resistant hologram system:
1. Make a small depression somewhere fairly prominent.
2. Glue in a holographic logo at manufacture.
3. Sell the ski/boots with a tranparent sticky patch backed with some glue
such that once stuck to the hologram it can't be removed without runining
it.
4. Customer writes name over hologram and sticks down patch on top.

This technology exists and would be a real deterrent.
Note that I have added boots to this - not so much because they are often
stolen but I have been to chalets where there are no individual lockers and
the wrong boots and skiis have been taken by accident.

"Ace" wrote in message
...

The same reasoning leads me to not have smoke detectors in my house.

I've always resisted the idea too, although I can't quite see how this
reasoning works. If you have smoke detectors, you'er more likely to
worry about the house catching fire? Can't see it myself.

It's all about probabilities: Compare the cost of insuring your cheap skis
against theft for a week versus insuring your very expensive house against
fire for a year and you can see that having a serious fire is wildly
improbable. When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for
saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only
asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and
most electrical items are switched off at night and that in many if not most
cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you and
you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of
a smoke detector.

If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive or
cross a road and certainly never ski.

Sammy wrote:
Misread your second line (oops): I'm not sure the two (locking your
house at night and your skis at lunchtime) are logically related in any
way.
But now you mention it, I expect the risks of someone trying your door
at night are not worth worrying about either.

People in my village leave their skis lying outside their house at night
if that's any help :-)

OT now but never mind....

Felly sgrifennodd Nick Hounsome :
It's all about probabilities: Compare the cost of insuring your cheap skis
against theft for a week versus insuring your very expensive house against
fire for a year and you can see that having a serious fire is wildly
improbable.

You might get cheaper house insurance though if you have smoke alarms.

When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for
saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only
asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and
most electrical items are switched off at night

But some of the ones most likely to cause a fire due to an electrical fault
(fridge, freezer etc) are not.

and that in many if not most
cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you

Unfortunately not true: the smoke makes you more sleepy and unlikely to
notice the fire.

and
you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of
a smoke detector.

There's nothing to be gained by not having a smoke detector (except a
few quid; they cost next to nothing).

If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive or
cross a road and certainly never ski.

I don't worry so much about fire in my house; I have smoke alarms! So I'm
relatively more likely to die in a skiing accident than in a house fire.
That's a good thing; I'd rather go out that way

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk

"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message
...
OT now but never mind....

Felly sgrifennodd Nick Hounsome :
It's all about probabilities: Compare the cost of insuring your cheap skis
against theft for a week versus insuring your very expensive house against
fire for a year and you can see that having a serious fire is wildly
improbable.

You might get cheaper house insurance though if you have smoke alarms.

IF you can it would probably be the best argument for them


When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for
saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only
asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults
and
most electrical items are switched off at night

But some of the ones most likely to cause a fire due to an electrical
fault
(fridge, freezer etc) are not.

Where do you get the idea that they are most likely?


and that in many if not most
cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you

Unfortunately not true: the smoke makes you more sleepy and unlikely to
notice the fire.

Less likely NOT unlikely - In most house fires nobody is killed.


and
you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense
of
a smoke detector.

There's nothing to be gained by not having a smoke detector (except a
few quid; they cost next to nothing).

"there is nothing to be gained except" = "there is something to be gained"

plus it depends on your definition of next to nothing - Would you buy two in
case one fails (they cost next to nothing)? Would you buy 3 just to be sure?


If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive
or
cross a road and certainly never ski.

I don't worry so much about fire in my house; I have smoke alarms! So I'm
relatively more likely to die in a skiing accident than in a house fire.
That's a good thing; I'd rather go out that way

I'd rather go in my sleep in a chalet fire on a ski holiday (last day of
course) :-)

Nick Hounsome wrote:

"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message
...
OT now but never mind....

Felly sgrifennodd Nick Hounsome :

When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for
saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only
asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults
and
most electrical items are switched off at night

But some of the ones most likely to cause a fire due to an electrical
fault
(fridge, freezer etc) are not.

Where do you get the idea that they are most likely?

Fridges and freezers are kept on constantly, normally for a period of
several years (we've got one that's 10 years old). They have motors in
them (can easily catch fire if they go wrong) and produce heat and they're
normally kept in a confined space. The only things more likely to cause a
fire are cookers, heaters, tumble driers and washing machines. Those
aren't usually used during the night and certainly not all night (except
heaters - does anyone have electric heaters any more?)

and that in many if not most
cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you

Unfortunately not true: the smoke makes you more sleepy and unlikely to
notice the fire.

Less likely NOT unlikely - In most house fires nobody is killed.

Fair enough. Just semantics really. You'll probably be woken up by the
smoke alarm well before you're woken up by the noise of the fire and
certainly before the smell of the smoke.

and
you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense
of
a smoke detector.

There's nothing to be gained by not having a smoke detector (except a
few quid; they cost next to nothing).

"there is nothing to be gained except" = "there is something to be gained"

plus it depends on your definition of next to nothing - Would you buy two in
case one fails (they cost next to nothing)? Would you buy 3 just to be sure?

We've got 3. One on the ground floor and two on the first floor. They cost
8 quid for the lot. I suspect they'll never be needed but 8 quid doesn't
seem like a lot to be woken up if I'm about to be suffocated by smoke.

If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive
or
cross a road and certainly never ski.

I don't worry so much about fire in my house; I have smoke alarms! So I'm
relatively more likely to die in a skiing accident than in a house fire.
That's a good thing; I'd rather go out that way

I'd rather go in my sleep in a chalet fire on a ski holiday (last day of
course) :-)

:-)

--
"Fighting terrorists with a military invasion is like trying to kill
a bee by shooting its beehive with a shotgun." - Anonymous, USENET
http://www.ollieclark.com/acronyms.html

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:55:23 GMT, "Nick Hounsome"
wrote:


"Ace" wrote in message
.. .

The same reasoning leads me to not have smoke detectors in my house.

I've always resisted the idea too, although I can't quite see how this
reasoning works. If you have smoke detectors, you'er more likely to
worry about the house catching fire? Can't see it myself.

It's all about probabilities: Compare the cost of insuring your cheap skis
against theft for a week versus insuring your very expensive house against
fire for a year and you can see that having a serious fire is wildly
improbable. When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for
saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only
asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and
most electrical items are switched off at night and that in many if not most
cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you and
you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of
a smoke detector.

Actually, that's not my argument at all :-)

My dislike of smoke alarms is based on the fact that they go off if
you make toast or grill pretty much anything with fat in it. So, I
balance the absolute certainty that they will **** me off against the
very small outside chance that they will save my life, and decide
against fitting them.
--
Champ

"Ollie Clark" wrote in message
...
Nick Hounsome wrote:

"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message
...
OT now but never mind....

Felly sgrifennodd Nick Hounsome :

When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for
saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only
asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults
and
most electrical items are switched off at night

But some of the ones most likely to cause a fire due to an electrical
fault
(fridge, freezer etc) are not.

Where do you get the idea that they are most likely?

Fridges and freezers are kept on constantly, normally for a period of
several years (we've got one that's 10 years old). They have motors in
them (can easily catch fire if they go wrong) and produce heat and they're
normally kept in a confined space. The only things more likely to cause a
fire are cookers, heaters, tumble driers and washing machines.

So fridges and frezers are not "some of the most likely" then are they!

Those
aren't usually used during the night and certainly not all night (except
heaters - does anyone have electric heaters any more?)

That was my point.


and that in many if not most
cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you

Unfortunately not true: the smoke makes you more sleepy and unlikely to
notice the fire.

Less likely NOT unlikely - In most house fires nobody is killed.

Fair enough. Just semantics really. You'll probably be woken up by the
smoke alarm well before you're woken up by the noise of the fire and
certainly before the smell of the smoke.

and
you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense
of
a smoke detector.

There's nothing to be gained by not having a smoke detector (except a
few quid; they cost next to nothing).

"there is nothing to be gained except" = "there is something to be
gained"

plus it depends on your definition of next to nothing - Would you buy two
in
case one fails (they cost next to nothing)? Would you buy 3 just to be
sure?

We've got 3. One on the ground floor and two on the first floor. They cost
8 quid for the lot. I suspect they'll never be needed but 8 quid doesn't
seem like a lot to be woken up if I'm about to be suffocated by smoke.


No but it seems like a lot to not be woken up by a fire that is never going
to happen.

I know I'm being picky here but this is just like the thread about helmets -
unless you know the actual statistics and have done a cost benefit analysis
you don't know whether it makes sense and end up spending your safety money
on the wrong things (c.f. spending billions on railway safety systems or buy
insurance for the electrical goods you buy at Comet/Dixons).

If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive
or
cross a road and certainly never ski.

I don't worry so much about fire in my house; I have smoke alarms! So
I'm
relatively more likely to die in a skiing accident than in a house fire.
That's a good thing; I'd rather go out that way

I'd rather go in my sleep in a chalet fire on a ski holiday (last day of
course) :-)

:-)

--
"Fighting terrorists with a military invasion is like trying to kill
a bee by shooting its beehive with a shotgun." - Anonymous, USENET
http://www.ollieclark.com/acronyms.html