Stolen skis

Sammy wrote:

So by locking your skis while your friends leave theirs unlocked, you
are directly increasing the risk that their skis would be stolen.
Nice! It's a bit like an infantry soldier ducking down to tie his
shoelaces just as the first rounds come in - effective for you, but not
very honourable.

Utter ****e.

Skis get stolen because people steal them and not because I lock mine.
How dare you suggest that because I take care of expensive possessions I
am some sort of coward. Your analogy of a soldier in battle is both
offensive and totally pointless in this argument.

You might long for some romantic era where you can safely leave things
unlocked and unattended, I live in the real world and I'll look after my
skis if you don't mind. The thieves aren't going to go away if I leave
my skis unlocked. If no one bothers to guard their skis ski theft will
get worse, it's easy pickings.


Jackson/Whistler: No wonder lift tickets are more expensive in North
America. I assume you'll welcome this being introduced in Europe,
otherwise what is your point?

What is my point? I was responding to your line
"People will be asking for CCTV on the mountains next... ". I thought
that was pretty obvious since I quoted your text in line.


In response to your very predictable "BTW": What on earth are you
talking about? Of course I lock my car and I have already (in this
thread) made the observation that you *have* to lock up your bike on a
street in London if you don't want it stolen. Yours is a straw-man
argument (and a crap one at that).

It's pretty clear what I was talking about. And stop with the straw man
******** too. What's next, are you going to use the words "ad hominem"
by any chance or some other Usenet drivel you picked up? You put up this
ridiculous line about leaving things unlocked and I pointed out, as did
others, that it doesn't work like that. Cars, houses, bikes are all
valid examples but for some reason skis (and boards I assume?) are
subject to different rules?

My point is simple: you can normally leave your skis outside a
restaurant on the mountain in full confidence that they will be there
when you return, a civilised aspect of skiing *that is worth
preserving*. As soon as some of us break ranks, to continue the
soldiering analogy, we will *all* inevitably have to carry locks and
faff around locking our kit down every time we leave it unattended.
Then the thieves will come with wire-cutters...

So I'm breaking ranks? That argument only works if for some reason my
locking my skis causes more skis to be stolen. It doesn't. Who's being
selfish here? You'd rather no one locked their skis so that *you* would
feel safer and *you* don't have to bother. You want the herd behaviour
for your own benefit. So your argument also requires that all, or most,
skis are equally attractive to a thief. I'm not sure that's the case. If
I were dishonest and looking to steal skis I'd look for new ones in good
nick and target those. So, for your idea to work we'd all have to ski on
the same kind of ski to avoid breaking ranks, surely? It's not me who is
shattering the (d)illusional world you want to preserve, it is the
people who steal skis.

Steve Haigh wrote:
Sammy wrote:

So by locking your skis while your friends leave theirs unlocked,
you
are directly increasing the risk that their skis would be stolen.
Nice! It's a bit like an infantry soldier ducking down to tie his
shoelaces just as the first rounds come in - effective for you, but
not
very honourable.

Utter ****e.

Skis get stolen because people steal them and not because I lock
mine.

Yes, agreed. Calm down. But who's skis get stolen? What do you think
your friends think of you as you lock your skis, while their's are left
*relatively* at risk?

How dare you suggest that because I take care of expensive
possessions I
am some sort of coward. Your analogy of a soldier in battle is both
offensive and totally pointless in this argument.

I thought it was quite amusing, actually. Locking (or ducking) only
works if you are in the minority of people doing it. Classic game
theory.


You might long for some romantic era where you can safely leave
things
unlocked and unattended, I live in the real world and I'll look after
my
skis if you don't mind. The thieves aren't going to go away if I
leave
my skis unlocked. If no one bothers to guard their skis ski theft
will
get worse, it's easy pickings.

Have you, or your friends, ever had a pair of skis stolen from outside
a mountain restaurant? If so, did you notice how many other pairs of
skis that they could have stolen were a) locked b) of roughly the same
value?



Jackson/Whistler: No wonder lift tickets are more expensive in
North
America. I assume you'll welcome this being introduced in Europe,
otherwise what is your point?

What is my point? I was responding to your line
"People will be asking for CCTV on the mountains next... ". I
thought
that was pretty obvious since I quoted your text in line.

Yes, but do you want CCTV in Europe? Who asked for it in North
America? Does it help? Does it add unnecessary costs for everyone?

In response to your very predictable "BTW": What on earth are you
talking about? Of course I lock my car and I have already (in this
thread) made the observation that you *have* to lock up your bike
on a
street in London if you don't want it stolen. Yours is a straw-man
argument (and a crap one at that).

It's pretty clear what I was talking about.

You asked if I locked my car. The answer is yes. It is not relevant.

And stop with the straw man
******** too. What's next, are you going to use the words "ad
hominem"
by any chance or some other Usenet drivel you picked up?

No. I don't even know what ad hominem means. But you did try to
discredit the logic of my argument with a point about locking cars: not
relevant and not what I was arguing at all.

You put up this
ridiculous line about leaving things unlocked and I pointed out, as
did
others, that it doesn't work like that. Cars, houses, bikes are all
valid examples but for some reason skis (and boards I assume?) are
subject to different rules?


Exactly! Skis and boards are evidentially subject to different rules:
this is worth preserving.

My point is simple: you can normally leave your skis outside a
restaurant on the mountain in full confidence that they will be
there
when you return, a civilised aspect of skiing *that is worth
preserving*. As soon as some of us break ranks, to continue the
soldiering analogy, we will *all* inevitably have to carry locks
and
faff around locking our kit down every time we leave it unattended.
Then the thieves will come with wire-cutters...

So I'm breaking ranks? That argument only works if for some reason my

locking my skis causes more skis to be stolen.

No, it is just a question of *who's* skis are stolen. The argument
works fine, thanks.

It doesn't. Who's being
selfish here? You'd rather no one locked their skis so that *you*
would
feel safer and *you* don't have to bother. You want the herd
behaviour
for your own benefit.

For everyone's benefit, actually.

So your argument also requires that all, or most,
skis are equally attractive to a thief. I'm not sure that's the case.
If
I were dishonest and looking to steal skis I'd look for new ones in
good
nick and target those. So, for your idea to work we'd all have to ski
on
the same kind of ski to avoid breaking ranks, surely? It's not me who
is
shattering the (d)illusional world you want to preserve, it is the
people who steal skis.

Again this is classic game theory: we as a group (honest skiers and
boarders) stand to lose a lot more by some people trying to gain a
*relative advantage* over others with the inevitable result that they
spoil it for everyone, themselves included.
Thank you for respecting my views even if you do not agree.

Sammy

In message .com,
Sammy writes
Jackson/Whistler: No wonder lift tickets are more expensive in North
America. I assume you'll welcome this being introduced in Europe,
otherwise what is your point?

It's here. The 1st bar/restaurant you come to off the slope in Val
Claret, Tignes has them. Strangely enough, this _was_ where my friends'
skis were nicked!
--
Pete Devlin
[{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}]
"Mind the oranges Marlon!"

"Sammy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Steve Haigh wrote:
Sammy wrote:

So by locking your skis while your friends leave theirs unlocked,
you
are directly increasing the risk that their skis would be stolen.
Nice! It's a bit like an infantry soldier ducking down to tie his
shoelaces just as the first rounds come in - effective for you, but
not
very honourable.

Utter ****e.

Skis get stolen because people steal them and not because I lock
mine.

Yes, agreed. Calm down. But who's skis get stolen? What do you think
your friends think of you as you lock your skis, while their's are left
*relatively* at risk?


'Perhaps I should get a lock?'


How dare you suggest that because I take care of expensive
possessions I
am some sort of coward. Your analogy of a soldier in battle is both
offensive and totally pointless in this argument.

I thought it was quite amusing, actually. Locking (or ducking) only
works if you are in the minority of people doing it. Classic game
theory.

It's a very poor analogy really. Are there any soldiers who wouldn't take
cover when under fire? If so, they would be in the minority.



You might long for some romantic era where you can safely leave
things
unlocked and unattended, I live in the real world and I'll look after
my
skis if you don't mind. The thieves aren't going to go away if I
leave
my skis unlocked. If no one bothers to guard their skis ski theft
will
get worse, it's easy pickings.

Have you, or your friends, ever had a pair of skis stolen from outside
a mountain restaurant? If so, did you notice how many other pairs of
skis that they could have stolen were a) locked b) of roughly the same
value?


But the thefts would still have taken place even if he'd left his skis
unlocked. You seem to think that there is some code among ski thieves that
might think, 'hey, everyone's left their skis unlocked, so as a mark of
respect, let's not steal any at all.

Obviously it's desirable not to have to lock skis, or anything else. The
increasing reality is that skis are getting stolen. It's not the person who
locks his skis that you should be blaming.

A. D.

Le Dieu wrote:
"Sammy" wrote in message

Have you, or your friends, ever had a pair of skis stolen from
outside
a mountain restaurant? If so, did you notice how many other pairs
of
skis that they could have stolen were a) locked b) of roughly the
same
value?


But the thefts would still have taken place even if he'd left his
skis
unlocked.

Yes, agreed.

You seem to think that there is some code among ski thieves that
might think, 'hey, everyone's left their skis unlocked, so as a mark
of
respect, let's not steal any at all.

No, not at all. Theft will happen. The only question is who's skis or
board will be taken. By trying to gain a relative advantage over other
fellow skiers/boarders, you are creating a situation where security
costs rise with little additional benefit: soon we will all put wires
round our skis and skis will still be stolen. Then a new more
expensive lock will be introduced and the cycle repeats.


Obviously it's desirable not to have to lock skis, or anything else.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the fact that we normally do not have
to lock skis is something that should be preserved - it is
special/unusual/refreshing.

The increasing reality is that skis are getting stolen.

Is it? I'm prepared to look at the evidence. As they say, if the
facts change...

It's not the person who locks his skis that you should be blaming.

Oh dear - look at my original post on this subject where I described
thieves as scum. We should focus on discouraging thieves, not
protecting kit at disproportionate cost and effort to everyone with
little additional benefit.

A. D.

There must be someone else out there who get's this? Otherwise I'll
drop it.

Sammy

"Sammy"

No, not at all. Theft will happen. The only question is who's skis or
board will be taken. By trying to gain a relative advantage over other
fellow skiers/boarders, you are creating a situation where security
costs rise with little additional benefit: soon we will all put wires
round our skis and skis will still be stolen. Then a new more
expensive lock will be introduced and the cycle repeats.

Sorry to be thick but are you suggesting that no one locks their skis or
switches them just to make the choice harder for the thief? I've heard of a
van pulling up and loading up an entire rack of skis into the back and
driving off. I think it was talked about here a few weeks ago.

If no one locked or switched their skis then the only choice for the thief
would be which skis are most valuable to him. Having battered rental skis
would then also discriminate against those who had nice new ones.



Obviously it's desirable not to have to lock skis, or anything else.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the fact that we normally do not have
to lock skis is something that should be preserved - it is
special/unusual/refreshing.


But this was only the case when skis weren't being stolen. Now they are
increasingly, so it seems, so the same rules don't apply.


The increasing reality is that skis are getting stolen.

Is it? I'm prepared to look at the evidence. As they say, if the
facts change...

It's not the person who locks his skis that you should be blaming.

Oh dear - look at my original post on this subject where I described
thieves as scum. We should focus on discouraging thieves, not
protecting kit at disproportionate cost and effort to everyone with
little additional benefit.

What do you feel is the best way to discourage them? Surely making their job
as difficult as possible is a start.

A. D.

Le Dieu wrote:
"Sammy"

No, not at all. Theft will happen. The only question is who's
skis or
board will be taken. By trying to gain a relative advantage over
other
fellow skiers/boarders, you are creating a situation where security
costs rise with little additional benefit: soon we will all put
wires
round our skis and skis will still be stolen. Then a new more
expensive lock will be introduced and the cycle repeats.

Sorry to be thick but are you suggesting that no one locks their skis
or
switches them just to make the choice harder for the thief? I've
heard of a
van pulling up and loading up an entire rack of skis into the back
and
driving off. I think it was talked about here a few weeks ago.

If no one locked or switched their skis then the only choice for the
thief
would be which skis are most valuable to him. Having battered rental
skis
would then also discriminate against those who had nice new ones.



Obviously it's desirable not to have to lock skis, or anything
else.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the fact that we normally do not
have
to lock skis is something that should be preserved - it is
special/unusual/refreshing.


But this was only the case when skis weren't being stolen. Now they
are
increasingly, so it seems, so the same rules don't apply.


The increasing reality is that skis are getting stolen.

Is it? I'm prepared to look at the evidence. As they say, if the
facts change...

It's not the person who locks his skis that you should be blaming.

Oh dear - look at my original post on this subject where I
described
thieves as scum. We should focus on discouraging thieves, not
protecting kit at disproportionate cost and effort to everyone with
little additional benefit.

What do you feel is the best way to discourage them? Surely making
their job
as difficult as possible is a start.

A. D.

OK, one more try since you are being civil:

Theft happens. Sometimes, though rarely, it happens outside mountain
restaurants (the only scenario I have been discussing).

We can respond by:

a) buying security kit and faffing around every time we stop for a
break (everyone will eventually have to follow suit)
b) being vigilant and using common sense (placing the skis in full view
next to others, not being the very last out from the bar after one too
many vin chauds etc.)

IMHO:
a) means we shift the risk of theft onto someone else (they retain
relatively more risk of theft than you because you bought the latest
security device and they did not).
b) means we are looking out for the ne'er do wells / suspicious
behaviour while benefiting from the safety in numbers factor - the
thief cannot be sure he is not being watched. We all gain.

a) is costly for everyone and will increase with time as security
requirements escalate (some skis will still be stolen)
b) is the appropriate response given the level of risk (some skis will
still be stolen)

a) is like city life: distrustful and fearful
b) is like a ski holiday, fun and relaxed

a) is uncool - it's only a pair of skis!
b) is debonair - let's get lunch!

Sammy

What about placing odd skis together, mixing sizes,types?

"Sammy" wrote in message
oups.com...

Le Dieu wrote:
"Sammy"

No, not at all. Theft will happen. The only question is who's
skis or
board will be taken. By trying to gain a relative advantage over
other
fellow skiers/boarders, you are creating a situation where security
costs rise with little additional benefit: soon we will all put
wires
round our skis and skis will still be stolen. Then a new more
expensive lock will be introduced and the cycle repeats.

Sorry to be thick but are you suggesting that no one locks their skis
or
switches them just to make the choice harder for the thief? I've
heard of a
van pulling up and loading up an entire rack of skis into the back
and
driving off. I think it was talked about here a few weeks ago.

If no one locked or switched their skis then the only choice for the
thief
would be which skis are most valuable to him. Having battered rental
skis
would then also discriminate against those who had nice new ones.



Obviously it's desirable not to have to lock skis, or anything
else.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the fact that we normally do not
have
to lock skis is something that should be preserved - it is
special/unusual/refreshing.


But this was only the case when skis weren't being stolen. Now they
are
increasingly, so it seems, so the same rules don't apply.


The increasing reality is that skis are getting stolen.

Is it? I'm prepared to look at the evidence. As they say, if the
facts change...

It's not the person who locks his skis that you should be blaming.

Oh dear - look at my original post on this subject where I
described
thieves as scum. We should focus on discouraging thieves, not
protecting kit at disproportionate cost and effort to everyone with
little additional benefit.

What do you feel is the best way to discourage them? Surely making
their job
as difficult as possible is a start.

A. D.

OK, one more try since you are being civil:

Theft happens. Sometimes, though rarely, it happens outside mountain
restaurants (the only scenario I have been discussing).

We can respond by:

a) buying security kit and faffing around every time we stop for a
break (everyone will eventually have to follow suit)
b) being vigilant and using common sense (placing the skis in full view
next to others, not being the very last out from the bar after one too
many vin chauds etc.)

IMHO:
a) means we shift the risk of theft onto someone else (they retain
relatively more risk of theft than you because you bought the latest
security device and they did not).
b) means we are looking out for the ne'er do wells / suspicious
behaviour while benefiting from the safety in numbers factor - the
thief cannot be sure he is not being watched. We all gain.

a) is costly for everyone and will increase with time as security
requirements escalate (some skis will still be stolen)
b) is the appropriate response given the level of risk (some skis will
still be stolen)

a) is like city life: distrustful and fearful
b) is like a ski holiday, fun and relaxed

a) is uncool - it's only a pair of skis!
b) is debonair - let's get lunch!

Sammy


Okay, I'm sold. I don't really like my current skis anyway.

A. D.

Le Dieu wrote:
"Sammy" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip
Sammy


Okay, I'm sold. I don't really like my current skis anyway.

A. D.

At least a thief would have solved your new ski issues, LD!