Stranger moving your bike?

[MarkH]

It was only to highlight a scenario where the level of inconvenience is higher for someone who is not parked.

So, what if a car is parked in a car parking space, but for some reason its location is inconvenient to a few other people? Is it OK to use a slim-jim to pop the lock, take off the handbrake and move it?

I think that before moving someone else bike (unless it is in a stupid place) you really want to have a good enough reason that would make the owner go "fair enough then" if he/she suddenly appeared as you were moving the bike. Not just a reason that a reasonable person would accept, but a reason so good that even if the bike owner was a very unreasonable person, they would still see that it was fair enough for you to move the bike.

In all other circumstances, why risk accidentally damaging the bike? Why risk pissing off the owner of the bike by moving it for no good reason? Why not just leave the fucking thing alone?

Similarly good parents don't let their sticky kid touch peoples bikes or get on them or get in peoples convertibles. Good parents teach their kids to respect other peoples property and not fuck with something that isn't yours without permission.

Giving someone a bollocking for fucking with a bike when no damage is done is just a public service - it stops the fuckwit from keeping on doing that until one day he accidentally damages someone's bike. You should be thanking Mrs Owl for reducing the chance of this particular fucktard moving your bike one day and dropping it. Giving this dickhead an earful WAS necessary, it just shouldn't have been - anyone old enough to drive should have already learned not to mess with other peoples property.

[superman]

Hmm... maybe I'll get me one of them 100dB alarmed disc locks.

[jazfender]

So, what if a car is parked in a car parking space, but for some reason its location is inconvenient to a few other people? Is it OK to use a slim-jim to pop the lock, take off the handbrake and move it?

Oh boy, this is not going to be popular:

I think that if a car was as easy to move as a bike, then I again would not have any problem with someone moving it so long as that same criteria is met:

- good reason
- not stealing
- no damage
- I was not there or in a position to move it myself

I think that before moving someone else bike (unless it is in a stupid place) you really want to have a good enough reason that would make the owner go "fair enough then" if he/she suddenly appeared as you were moving the bike.

Me too. I agree with that completely.

Not just a reason that a reasonable person would accept, but a reason so good that even if the bike owner was a very unreasonable person, they would still see that it was fair enough for you to move the bike.

Generally someone wouldn't move a bike except for a good reason. It's people that don't want their bike moved for ANY REASON that I take issue with.

In all other circumstances, why risk accidentally damaging the bike? Why risk pissing off the owner of the bike by moving it for no good reason? Why not just leave the fucking thing alone?

Nobody sane is going to move a bike without a reason. I would consider moving someone's bike or property for no reason to be fucking with it.

Giving someone a bollocking for fucking with a bike when no damage is done is just a public service - it stops the fuckwit from keeping on doing that until one day he accidentally damages someone's bike.

You are not fucking with a bike if you are moving it for a legitimate reason.

[Hawkeye]

So...... going back to the original op's #1 post.
The cage driver moved the bike because he was inconvienced because he was incapable of reversing a trailer. A bike, that was there before the cager arrived and was parked ligitimately!

Am I missing something so far.... don't think so!

Bike not causing an obstruction, but cager thinks he'll move it just to make his life easier.

Can someone please explain to me how the f@*k anyone finds that acceptable. Touching other peoples property without permission is a offence at the very least.

[MarkH]

Oh boy, this is not going to be popular:

Generally someone wouldn't move a bike except for a good reason. It's people that don't want their bike moved for ANY REASON that I take issue with.

Nobody sane is going to move a bike without a reason. I would consider moving someone's bike or property for no reason to be fucking with it.

What? Are you deliberately acting thick? What do you think this thread is about? Did you read the OP?

How many people have said that they don't want their bike touched for any reason and that includes it being moved so a fire engine or ambulance to get through? None - there are always exceptions to any rule! But the rule is you don't go moving someone's bike.

So...... going back to the original op's #1 post.
The cage driver moved the bike because he was inconvienced because he was incapable of reversing a trailer. A bike, that was there before the cager arrived and was parked ligitimately!

Am I missing something so far.... don't think so!

Just one thing - the fucktard went and moved TWO bikes because he was too retarded to just back his vehicle & trailer up.

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

Generally someone wouldn't move a bike except for a good reason. It's people that don't want their bike moved for ANY REASON that I take issue with.

Most people just start a new members thread to introduce themselves - you've taken one hell of a way to introduce yourself to the forums.

Personally, I think you need to understand how most bikers feel about their bikes - you might not care about yours too much but most bikers would feel very aggrieved if someone had scratched a tank or scuffed a seat/ rear cowl just so they could have a picture taken on a bike.

And on the second point - there is usually very little reason to ever move a bike - they are generally parked out of the way for good reason - bikers don't like their rides being touched.

You are obviously relatively new to biking and will, in time, understand that bikers defend their rights as equal road users quite strongly. Moving a bike because "it is an inconvenience" to a larger vehicle is not an argument most bikers will accept for someone touching their bike.

[jazfender]

Did you read the OP?

I think this is the sixth, maybe seventh time I've said that it's not the scenario in the OP that I'm talking about.

I was responding to people acting as though their bike being parked somewhere means they all but own the ground it's parked on.

How many people have said that they don't want their bike touched for any reason and that includes it being moved so a fire engine or ambulance to get through?

The ambulance was just an example of an extreme and it still met resistance. People don't want their bikes touched regardless of whether or not it inconveniences anyone else. As if it's a sacred object to be revered. That's what I don't agree with.

Personally, I think you need to understand how most bikers feel about their bikes - you might not care about yours too much but most bikers would feel very aggrieved if someone had scratched a tank or scuffed a seat/ rear cowl just so they could have a picture taken on a bike.

I know exactly how bikers feel about their bikes and is exactly what I disagree with.

I'd be pissed if someone damaged my bike too bro. OK I wouldn't care if someone scuffed my seat but like I said before, that's a little different to moving a bike for a good reason.

And on the second point - there is usually very little reason to ever move a bike -

Yup, so?

You are obviously relatively new to biking and will, in time, understand that bikers defend their rights as equal road users quite strongly.

You are obviously relatively new to the internet and will, in time, understand that internet users will happily express their opinion on the internet quite strongly.

Moving a bike because "it is an inconvenience" to a larger vehicle is not an argument most bikers will accept for someone touching their bike.

I've been in a situation a couple of times where I've parked with my centre-stand down between two bikes. Person to the right of me has used their side-stand. Their bike and mine are legitimately parked however their bike handlebars are actually across mine so I can't get my bike out without touching or moving theirs.

Now that to me, is an inconvenience and I don't give a fuck if their bike is a Black Shadow, if I need to move it to get out, I will move it.

And it is unreasonable in my opinion for someone to come out, see me moving their bike to get mine out and have a go because I didn't ask them first. But that has also happened.

[awayatc]

You are obviously relatively new to the internet and will, in time, understand that internet users will happily express their opinion on the internet quite strongly.

Bet you got a bike just because it is a cheap way to get to work......

well, This is kiwibiker......

Not f*ckn Kiwi comuter....

[pritch]

I was responding to people acting as though their bike being parked somewhere means they all but own the ground it's parked on

In a way they do. Last time I looked (and it was a long time ago) it was an offence to interfere with a motor vehicle that you did not own.

Simple really. So what are we arguing about again?

[PrincessBandit]

What? Are you deliberately acting thick? What do you think this thread is about? Did you read the OP?......
Just one thing - the fucktard went and moved TWO bikes because he was too retarded to just back his vehicle & trailer up.

Mark, this person (gender unclear) is simply determined to keep churning out stuff under the issue of not being related/relevant to the OP.

Where he/she is stuck at is the fact that your last sentence (and heaps of other posts in this thread) is the operative fact in the OPs point.

I would like to think that the majority of people who have voiced here their lack of understanding of anyone touching their bike would NOT be leaving it deliberately parked where it is either illegal or cause reasonable inconvenience to someone else who has the right to access that area. This doesn't include those who simply wish to utilise the area due to their own laziness or incompetence.

[Owl]

Last time I looked (and it was a long time ago) it was an offence to interfere with a motor vehicle that you did not own.

That's sort of what I thought, but some clarification would be a bonus.

Where's scumdog, rastuscat and red mermaid etc? God knows they have plenty to say in other threads

[swbarnett]

People don't want their bikes touched regardless of whether or not it inconveniences anyone else.

If it's legitimately parked then under anything but extreme, life and death, circumstances the only good reason for touching another's property is if not doing so would allow that property to be damaged or stolen e.g. catching a bike as it blows over to prevent fall damage.

As if it's a sacred object to be revered. That's what I don't agree with.

As far as I'm concerned someone's instrument of passion IS an object to be reverred. Be that bike, car or anything else.

I know exactly how bikers feel about their bikes.

Until you feel the same way I doubt you can ever understand.

I've been in a situation a couple of times where I've parked with my centre-stand down between two bikes. Person to the right of me has used their side-stand. Their bike and mine are legitimately parked however their bike handlebars are actually across mine so I can't get my bike out without touching or moving theirs.

Now that to me, is an inconvenience and I don't give a fuck if their bike is a Black Shadow, if I need to move it to get out, I will move it.

Yes, but this is an inconvenience caused by the other person's lack of considertaion for your right of egress. The bike is not legitimately parked.

[ynot slow]

I've been in a situation a couple of times where I've parked with my centre-stand down between two bikes. Person to the right of me has used their side-stand. Their bike and mine are legitimately parked however their bike handlebars are actually across mine so I can't get my bike out without touching or moving theirs.

So reading this quote of "parked between 2 bikes (which were there)"" and need to move a bike to get out",why would you park between said 2 bikes,the crux to me would be park a bit further along the road,heck you must've had to be bloody carefull parking in first place,as you obviously needed to move(a bike) to go.

Also I would assume if someone I didn't know was pushing my bike away,is it alright to assume they maybe about to steal it,pretty far fetched,but there is a few people whose bikes have been wheeled away and stolen.

[MarkH]

The ambulance was just an example of an extreme and it still met resistance. People don't want their bikes touched regardless of whether or not it inconveniences anyone else. As if it's a sacred object to be revered. That's what I don't agree with.

I suspected that you were full of shit, so I re-read the entire thread and confirmed it. Not a single poster has said that they would have a problem with their bike being moved if it was necessary for an ambulance to get through. For that matter no one seems to have a problem with their bike being moved IF it is blocking legit access for other people.

The problem here is that many people park their bikes where they are not in the way of anyone and there is no good reason why they should be moved, then some dick comes along and decides it would be a little easier if the bikes weren't there and moves them. It is done for a reason, but it isn't necessary and the reason isn't really a good enough one from the point of view of the bike owner.

Then there is the idiot poster problem - refusing to 'get' what it is that the thread is discussing and argues on a tangent to everyone else.

[jazfender]

Bet you got a bike just because it is a cheap way to get to work......

Actually I bought a bike initially as a toy before developing a passion for the experience of motorcycling. That passion is for the experience itself, not the hunk of metal that delivers it.

If it's legitimately parked then under anything but extreme, life and death, circumstances the only good reason for touching another's property is if not doing so would allow that property to be damaged or stolen e.g. catching a bike as it blows over to prevent fall damage.

Sure, if you have a callus lack of regard for anyone else. As MarkH said - there are exceptions to the rule!

As far as I'm concerned someone's instrument of passion IS an object to be reverred. Be that bike, car or anything else.

I disagree, so what?

Until you feel the same way I doubt you can ever understand.

Just because I don't place as much value in material objects as you does not mean I am incapable of understanding the value that other people instil in them. However, I also believe in a lot of cases that value can be unreasonable.

The bike is not legitimately parked.

OK, I will concede that. It's really just another example to highlight some of the ridiculous attitudes towards property that some people have.

So reading this quote of "parked between 2 bikes (which were there)"" and need to move a bike to get out",why would you park between said 2 bikes,the crux to me would be park a bit further along the road,heck you must've had to be bloody carefull parking in first place,as you obviously needed to move(a bike) to go.

Well at the time because it was the last space. Do I have to forfeit this because of inconsiderate parking? Have I cast the first stone if I move the bike slightly to get in?

There has also been a time where I parked a scooter and came back later to find someone had parked their bike beside mine in a way that stopped me from moving it. No angry owner to be seen though.

Also I would assume if someone I didn't know was pushing my bike away,is it alright to assume they maybe about to steal it,pretty far fetched,but there is a few people whose bikes have been wheeled away and stolen.

Yeah, I get that but it wasn't like I wheeled it away, I just held the bike a little more upright so I could wheel mine out.

Not a single poster has said that they would have a problem with their bike being moved if it was necessary for an ambulance to get through.

As I said, that was an extreme example to give perspective. And I recall Smifffy saying something along the lines of that he should have the right to deny them or something, I can't remember exactly but I'll have a look.

For that matter no one seems to have a problem with their bike being moved IF it is blocking legit access for other people.

Even without permission? I think some of those would disagree.

It is done for a reason, but it isn't necessary and the reason isn't really a good enough one from the point of view of the bike owner.

That's the thing, from the point of view of the bike owner. Why does that point of view take precedence over anyone else?