Public Bike Stands

jimmy1000

Hi folks,

I'd be very grateful if you could give me some comments or debate on public bike stands to help with a college project.

I want to look at designing a more secure bike stand, what are your thoughts on existing stands? How do you think they could be improved? What features do you think are important? What issues do you see with this idea?

Cheers,
Jimmy

onimpulse

A lot of the new curver kind of ones IIFSC for example) look great but they are so wide a standard u-lock won't fit around them & a bike! Kind of frustrating as the U-Lock is the easiest to carry around with you on the bike.

Also, there aren't half enough of them!

jimmy1000

onimpulse wrote: »

A lot of the new curver kind of ones IIFSC for example) look great but they are so wide a standard u-lock won't fit around them & a bike! Kind of frustrating as the U-Lock is the easiest to carry around with you on the bike.

Also, there aren't half enough of them!

I'm not sure I've seen those ones. Will try and get down to there and check them out. What shape are they?

Hail 2 Da Thief

jimmy1000 wrote: »

what are your thoughts on existing stands?

Here's our views on one type of stand.

jimmy1000

Hail 2 Da Thief wrote: »

Here's our views on one type of stand.

Interesting, thanks. I actually came across something similar in my research:

http://youtu.be/OcSD5MsQuVo

Lumen

Plain old sheffield stands are the best. There's a long article on it somewhere.

The curvy stand idiocy is not isolated to Ireland. I was in Budapest last week and they were all over the place.

kona

Thinner tubing with a harder metal used. Maybe try to install some sort of alarm or camera system that pictures everybody that touches the bike

jimmy1000

Lumen wrote: »

Plain old sheffield stands are the best. There's a long article on it somewhere.

The curvy stand idiocy is not isolated to Ireland. I was in Budapest last week and they were all over the place.

But could sheffield stands be improved at all? After all their only function is that their a sturdy object to lock a bike to, other than that they do nothing to protect the bike or to enhance the security any further.

Lumen

jimmy1000 wrote: »

But could sheffield stands be improved at all?

Only by installing more of them.

jimmy1000 wrote: »

After all their only function is that their a sturdy object to lock a bike to, other than that they do nothing to protect the bike or to enhance the security any further.

Protect the bike how? The main concern with other stands is that they damage the bike, don't allow secure locking, or are space inefficient. Doing nothing bad is a positive. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

DirkVoodoo

EDIT: Resized.

ThisRegard

Lumen wrote: »

Protect the bike how? The main concern with other stands is that they damage the bike, don't allow secure locking.

Our office complex have the type you wheel your wheel into. They're pretty brutal as the space is tight so people tend to lean against other bikes when putting theirs in which can damage the wheels, plus you can't securely lock your rear wheel and frame to the stand with a u-lock as the frame doesn't come up high enough so it's either the frame, or frame and wheel but only the wheel using a spoke and not the rim.

jimmy1000

Lumen wrote: »

Only by installing more of them.



Protect the bike how? The main concern with other stands is that they damage the bike, don't allow secure locking, or are space inefficient. Doing nothing bad is a positive. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

I'm not talking about fixing it, I want to think of ways ot improve it. Obviously the intention of doing so would involve maintaining as far as possible the features of sheffield stands that you list but does that mean they're perfect?

Think of all the bikes you see locked to stands with battered wheels (I used to think this was just vandalism but read a post today saying it's a tactic of theives to buy time to come back and steal the bike).

I'm also thinking about a means to secure the bike and wheels with only one lock. Obviously people who use two locks aren't going to ditch one of them but it would improve security for the majority of people who only carry one.

jimmy1000

kona wrote: »

Thinner tubing with a harder metal used. Maybe try to install some sort of alarm or camera system that pictures everybody that touches the bike

Good points, cheers. I'm thinking along the lines of keeping it as simple as possible so the thinner tubing and harder metal are particularly relevant.

Lumen

jimmy1000 wrote: »

Think of all the bikes you see locked to stands with battered wheels (I used to think this was just vandalism but read a post today saying it's a tactic of theives to buy time to come back and steal the bike).

I'm also thinking about a means to secure the bike and wheels with only one lock. Obviously people who use two locks aren't going to ditch one of them but it would improve security for the majority of people who only carry one.

The one lock challenge is easily solvable using security skewers, but a bike is just a bunch of parts bolted together, and so is fundamentally vulnerable to attack.

If you can think of a cheap, simple, compact design which will protect anything from a 12" wheeled kids bike to a 29" wheeled full suspension MTB, you'll have more imagination than me. Those robotic underground bike-parks look good, but the infrastructure costs must be huge.

Most bikes are locked with crappy cable locks because people are ignorant idiots; you cannot engineer out idiocy. I don't want my tax money spent on protecting the BSOs of people too stupid to do some basic research on bike security and too stingy to buy a decent u-lock.

jimmy1000

Lumen wrote: »

The one lock challenge is easily solvable using security skewers, but a bike is just a bunch of parts bolted together, and so is fundamentally vulnerable to attack.

If you can think of a cheap, simple, compact design which will protect anything from a 12" wheeled kids bike to a 29" wheeled full suspension MTB, you'll have more imagination than me. Those robotic underground bike-parks look good, but the infrastructure costs must be huge.

Most bikes are locked with crappy cable locks because people are ignorant idiots; you cannot engineer out idiocy. I don't want my tax money spent on protecting the BSOs of people too stupid to do some basic research on bike security and too stingy to buy a decent u-lock.

Isn't it the thieves that you should be concerned about rather than the stupid? As you say idiocy can't be engineered out but I think it's worth looking at improving security to the detrement of the thieves.

As you say there are other answers to the one lock problem but I want a solution that can be icorporated into the bike stand so that everybody can benefit from it.

BostonB

jimmy1000 wrote: »

Interesting, thanks. I actually came across something similar in my research:

http://youtu.be/OcSD5MsQuVo

I guess that has the advantage no one can steal all the bits off bike. As they can't reach it. Though there may be an issue if something falls off it and lands on someone head.

blorg

Adding a diagonal bar through the middle of a Sheffield Stand might make it easier to lock any size bike properly- the diagonal should be the right height at some point along its length for whatever size bike.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Adding a diagonal bar through the middle of a Sheffield Stand might make it easier to lock any size bike properly- the diagonal should be the right height at some point along its length for whatever size bike.

Possibly, or it might just get in the way.

I lock three bikes (adult racer, 14" flatbar, 12" flatbar) to a Sheffield stand with a single lock - that heavy-duty chain you sold me. There is a security skewer on the front wheel of the racer and the kids wheels are bolted on (no quick releases). I take the risk that someone will steal the kids wheels but it hasn't happened yet (Zipp don't do wheels that small).

The car theft problem was largely solved by engine immobilizers, not by turning car parking spaces into secure carports.

tomasrojo

Fire hydrants in the states have pentagonal nuts. Maybe you can get them in sizes appropriate for kids' bicycle wheels. If you were bothered.

HivemindXX

Sheffield stands are the best I've seen. The type where you pin one wheel in to a toast rack is rubbish because it's difficult if not impossible to properly secure your bike to one and because they actively encourage damage to your bike.

Any sort of hutch around the stand will limit the flexibility of the stand. For example I've locked one bike to another to another and ended up with a stack of 4 bikes all locked to each other and the stand when I've been with a group of people. I'd prefer the ability to do something like that to any protection from the elements a cover might provide.

If you look at bike stands around town you will find bikes that have slipped down to the ground. This is usually because the lock was on the vertical part of the stand and slid down when the bike got jostled. When the bike is on the ground it is vulnerable to damage and also causes an obstructions for pedestrians and possibly motorists. A mechanism to stop the lock sliding down would be nice. Perhaps thin cross bars parallel with the ground or bulges on the vertical bars.

Qualitymark

I like the look of this one in San Francisco: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bpark/3176.html

The main problem is that there aren't enough parking spaces.

Interesting piece here http://www.greengrowthcc.com/2011/01/28/economics-of-bike-parking/ about the economics of bike parking - also nice-looking stands that don't take up a lot of space.

Hail 2 Da Thief

Qualitymark wrote: »

I like the look of this one in San Francisco: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bpark/3176.html.

They're Sheffield stands.

Lumen

HivemindXX wrote: »

If you look at bike stands around town you will find bikes that have slipped down to the ground. This is usually because the lock was on the vertical part of the stand and slid down when the bike got jostled....A mechanism to stop the lock sliding down would be nice.

Doesn't happen if the lock is used properly.



Here's a suggestion: add a sign which says "your cable lock is useless", and a diagrammatic representation of the above pic.

Lumen

ThisRegard wrote:

Isn't that bike just locked using the wheel, remove the wheel and you have the bike ?

Good luck with that!

(read the link)

tomasrojo

It's probably only a matter of time before someone posts this:
http://www.bikemandan.com/blog/sheldon-brown-locking-strategy-vulnerability

However, I have to say they cheated a bit here, by using a bike with a LOT of clearance between the wheel and seat tube, with no mudguards, and used the most slender and long lock (is it even a lock) possible. You couldn't get a hacksaw that size between my wheel, a Fahgettaboudit and a Sheffield stand. You could use another cutting tool, but it would take longer and be a bigger pain. And you'd still be left with a bike you couldn't cycle away. And the other u-lock on the front wheel, in my case.

dave.obrien

I think you might have a better project if you focus on bike locking in a slightly more general way than the rack itself. As you've just discovered, cyclists have a type of rack they like; the sheffield stand. Iterations of that have included placing a horizontal bar to prevent poorly locked bike from falling over, al la

http://www.baileystreetscene.co.uk/product-stainless-steel-sheffield-cycle-stand-with-mid-rail-814.html


Even look at David Byrne's versions of them, which are no more than pictures really, but follow the same rules as the sheffield stand; material stronger than the locks, not compromising whole single side access to the bike, not requiring any sort of male/female engagement (like the "toast rack" design) and with a closed loop. These are obvious criteria for anyone who cycles, but often designers think that new "features" can make a rack better, like the wheel supports of the toast-rack design.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/new-bike-racks-courtesy-of-david-byrne/

The biggest problems with racks are their quantity and location; these are issues that designers on an urban level are constantly seeking to improve, but it can be met with resistance. Why not try to identify the criteria for successful locations and the volume of bikes a location is capable of carrying and develop a number of bike locking areas from there?

ThisRegard

Lumen wrote: »

Good luck with that!

(read the link)

Dang it, I had another look at the photo as soon as I posted and realised how it was locked, hence my hasty removal of it, but obviously not hasty enough !

jimmy1000

dave.obrien wrote: »

I think you might have a better project if you focus on bike locking in a slightly more general way than the rack itself. As you've just discovered, cyclists have a type of rack they like; the sheffield stand. Iterations of that have included placing a horizontal bar to prevent poorly locked bike from falling over, al la

http://www.baileystreetscene.co.uk/product-stainless-steel-sheffield-cycle-stand-with-mid-rail-814.html


Even look at David Byrne's versions of them, which are no more than pictures really, but follow the same rules as the sheffield stand; material stronger than the locks, not compromising whole single side access to the bike, not requiring any sort of male/female engagement (like the "toast rack" design) and with a closed loop. These are obvious criteria for anyone who cycles, but often designers think that new "features" can make a rack better, like the wheel supports of the toast-rack design.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/new-bike-racks-courtesy-of-david-byrne/

The biggest problems with racks are their quantity and location; these are issues that designers on an urban level are constantly seeking to improve, but it can be met with resistance. Why not try to identify the criteria for successful locations and the volume of bikes a location is capable of carrying and develop a number of bike locking areas from there?

Thanks Dave, the Sheffield stands do seem to have plenty of support on here! But my course is to design a product and I’ve chosen bike stands so I think I’ll have to see to see it through. Whether the end design is an improvement on Sheffield stands or not will be open to debate but at the end of the day the course is really about the process of the design rather than its chances of success. From that end of things the comments from here are much appreciated and very useful so many thanks to everyone for those and please keep them coming if anyone has anything to add!

As for the design I am thinking of some way that the rear wheel could be fixed in position so that it couldn’t be removed and also trying to think of a way that the front wheel and frame can be locked to the stand and minimise any space or slack between the lock and the elements it’s locked to as this seems to be one of the main weaknesses that thieves can exploit. As I’ve said, this doesn’t really improve security for most of the people on here who are well aware of the best practices and are willing to spend more money on the best locks but as you all know there’s plenty people out there who aren’t either of those things and its with those people in mind that I’m designing.

It helps to get the opinions of the experts though!

Qualitymark

This is what they do in Japan - you pay a small monthly fee to lock your bicycle in a two-level stand by the train station, where a security guard watches the bikes during the day. Mind you, theft is almost unknown in Japan, where salaries are remarkably similar in most jobs.



Hm, that didn't work. I'll try jut adding the link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61713504@N07/5657031881/in/photostream

tomasrojo

I suppose you might consider a bike stand based on the Sheldon Brown method. You only need a T-shape to park if you lock this way. You can have four bikes locked very close together using this method: two pointing to the left in parallel, two pointing to the right in a mirror image. You just need one t-shape at each of the corners of a narrow rectangle.

Of course, Y-frame bikes can't be locked the Sheldon Brown way and not everyone is happy locking that way. But if you're looking for novel angles, something like this might suit you.

This is off the top of my head, so it could be complete nonsense.

Lumen

Problem: Sheffield stand scratches bike.
Solution: Sheffield stand with a rubber sheath, like a u-lock.

Canis Lupus

An armed and angry security guard at every bike stand.

dave.obrien

jimmy1000 wrote: »

Thanks Dave, the Sheffield stands do seem to have plenty of support on here! But my course is to design a product and I’ve chosen bike stands so I think I’ll have to see to see it through. Whether the end design is an improvement on Sheffield stands or not will be open to debate but at the end of the day the course is really about the process of the design rather than its chances of success. From that end of things the comments from here are much appreciated and very useful so many thanks to everyone for those and please keep them coming if anyone has anything to add!

As for the design I am thinking of some way that the rear wheel could be fixed in position so that it couldn’t be removed and also trying to think of a way that the front wheel and frame can be locked to the stand and minimise any space or slack between the lock and the elements it’s locked to as this seems to be one of the main weaknesses that thieves can exploit. As I’ve said, this doesn’t really improve security for most of the people on here who are well aware of the best practices and are willing to spend more money on the best locks but as you all know there’s plenty people out there who aren’t either of those things and its with those people in mind that I’m designing.

It helps to get the opinions of the experts though!

I'm a former product design student myself, currently studying architecture, so I can sympathise with the academic requirements!

As I said, I think it could be a more interesting design exercise to approach it in a more holistic manner; what are the factors that make specific areas work, and how can we design them into future bike locking facilities, rather than assuming the answer is in a specific element? I think that a lot of anti-social and criminal behaviour stem from a number of factors, some being opportunistic ones like bad bike racks, bad locks and taking advantage of environmental factors such as poor passive surveillance, or conversely, footfall that's so high people assume someone else will look after "the problem". There's a whole list of reasons why bikes get stolen, and while looking at the bike rack may be a useful design exercise to introduce you to these issues, I'd be sceptical as to whether or not the end product would be an improvement on what currently exists.

What's interesting about your chosen piece is that it opens up a huge range of design issues to you; you're not just designing a practical object, you're designing a practical object that has to engage with it's user, who by definition could be a different person every time, and prove to be frustrating to a specific sub-group (thieves). It's a complex brief, and the success of the sheffield rack is in assuming responsibility for only a limited number of them, and dealing with them very well: they are easy to use, easy to "understand" in a visual language manner, and very tough to break through. This shifts the responsibility of safety back to the user; if their locks are crap, they can't blame the rack!

With regards your suggestions so far, I think anything that secures a wheel is questionable. What may "fix" the position of a wheel may also provide a point around which a bike could be levered, damaging it badly, intentionally by a thief or accidentally by a clumsy fellow bike-locker. Also, the slack in a lock that you suggest you might try to design out is rarely a result of the rack, and more often a result of the length of the specific lock in question, and as these are available in a multitude of lengths, it would be very impressive if you manage to design a rack that can manipulate slack on such a variable.

It could be an interesting project, make sure you post your design here when you've finished.

Lumen

I guess an obvious improvement would be an integrated lock.

For instance, some sort of simple cage with a locking bar that comes down over the top. The key could work the same way as Dublin bikes. You could use the same sort of infrastructure as DBs (locations, authorisation system, payments) to eliminate key loss.

Obviously density would be lower, but that's wasn't much of a limiting factor for DBs - they just built bigger stations.

It would be like "bring your own Dublin bike".

Yes, I do understand that Dublin is not Ireland

jimmy1000

Lumen wrote: »

I guess an obvious improvement would be an integrated lock.

For instance, some sort of simple cage with a locking bar that comes down over the top. The key could work the same way as Dublin bikes. You could use the same sort of infrastructure as DBs (locations, authorisation system, payments) to eliminate key loss.

Obviously density would be lower, but that's wasn't much of a limiting factor for DBs - they just built bigger stations.

It would be like "bring your own Dublin bike".

Yes, I do understand that Dublin is not Ireland

Hi Lumen, yeah the integrated lock is something I've considered a lot and while you could certainly design something that's extremely secure there are a couple of things putting me off the idea:

Firstly I think that the mechanism would have to be as simple as possible to keep costs down and to make it a viable solution to the councils or colleges etc that are the potential customers. To do this I think you would have to charge people to use the device. The combination of these factors is very hard to balance and come up with something that people would pay to use. After all unless there's more than enough of them to handle all the users who might want to use them at any one time, then people would end up carrying locks with them anyway. And if they have to do that then I think most people would end up locking their bikes up normally rather than spend more money to do so using some fancy device.

The only other option I could think of is a purely mechanical device but this is fraught with difficulties - how would it lock being the main one but also the health and safety concerns with having a mechanical device which must have some sort of moving parts in a public place.

BostonB

Well you have the Dublin bikes example. The lock on the bike, not the stand.

The problem is someones personal bike is a completely different theft risk than a Dublin bike. Its has far more removable parts, more parts to lock, and theres a market for resale that doesn't exist with Dublin Bikes.

jimmy1000

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suppose you might consider a bike stand based on the Sheldon Brown method. You only need a T-shape to park if you lock this way. You can have four bikes locked very close together using this method: two pointing to the left in parallel, two pointing to the right in a mirror image. You just need one t-shape at each of the corners of a narrow rectangle.

Of course, Y-frame bikes can't be locked the Sheldon Brown way and not everyone is happy locking that way. But if you're looking for novel angles, something like this might suit you.

This is off the top of my head, so it could be complete nonsense.

Not sure whether it's nonsense or not cause I don't actually understand the configuration your describing!

From the sounds of it though, it does involve locking the bikes using the Sheldon Brown method which goes against one of the points of my self-defined brief which is to provide a more secure means of locking a bike using one lock.

jimmy1000

BostonB wrote: »

Well you have the Dublin bikes example. The lock on the bike, not the stand.

That's true, I did find some examples of such devices already, this is the Batavus bike with integrated cable lock:


Also check out this integrated u-lock:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pereiracycles/3974630071/

BostonB

A U lock wouldn't work unless it was able to move up and down to suit different bikes. Cable locks don't have that problem. But they are not as secure.

BostonB

Theres also this...
http://spokefiend.com/2010/08/james-dyson-award-finalist/
http://dvice.com/archives/2008/10/city-rack-a-bik.php

Capt'n Midnight

Sheffield stands should be fairly cheap since its more or less a bent tube.

Anything that holds the bike by the wheels alone will be avoided by cyclists who don't want their wheels damaged througy accident, clumsiness or vandalism or whatever.


Another neat idea for a bike stand is to have a strong chain welded to it - so the user just needs to carry a Large padlock, which would still be lighter and cheaper than a U lock
- strong = uncutable with a bolt cutter , i.e. too heavy to carry around with you , stuff you lift skips with or lock motorbikes

an old bicycle tube around the chain will stop it scratching the bike frame

you can have the chains hanging down from a high bar so the bike is supported from above (it's an option) - and yes if someone can't swing from one it ain't strong enough.

jimmy1000

Ok, I think I've got my brief pretty much sorted, please let me know what you think and if there's anything you think should be added:

To design a bike new bike stand with all the basic principles of the current dominant design - the sheffield stand - but also to improve certain features of the sheffield stand. To summarise the features shall include:

• A strong upturned u-shaped (or similar) stand
• Does not damage the paintwork of the bike
• Allows a wide range of locks of different shapes and sizes to take advantage of the additional features of the stand
• Allows the front and rear wheels to be secured with the use of a single lock (without increasing the potential for the bike to be damaged)
• Improves the security of that lock by reducing any slack which makes it easier for a thief to break
• Is easy to understand from a funtionality point of view
• Is relatively cheap and simple to manufacture
• Does not involve the need for an armed and angry security guard at every bike stand

Easy!

jimmy1000

BostonB wrote: »

Theres also this...
http://spokefiend.com/2010/08/james-dyson-award-finalist/
http://dvice.com/archives/2008/10/city-rack-a-bik.php

I'd seen both those before, although I'd forgotten about the second one which is nice and simple. The first is a neat idea too but as i said in my response to Lumen's post, I don't think this sort of idea offer an alternative to sheffield stands because of cost.

jimmy1000

dave.obrien wrote: »

I'm a former product design student myself, currently studying architecture, so I can sympathise with the academic requirements!

As I said, I think it could be a more interesting design exercise to approach it in a more holistic manner; what are the factors that make specific areas work, and how can we design them into future bike locking facilities, rather than assuming the answer is in a specific element? I think that a lot of anti-social and criminal behaviour stem from a number of factors, some being opportunistic ones like bad bike racks, bad locks and taking advantage of environmental factors such as poor passive surveillance, or conversely, footfall that's so high people assume someone else will look after "the problem". There's a whole list of reasons why bikes get stolen, and while looking at the bike rack may be a useful design exercise to introduce you to these issues, I'd be sceptical as to whether or not the end product would be an improvement on what currently exists.

What's interesting about your chosen piece is that it opens up a huge range of design issues to you; you're not just designing a practical object, you're designing a practical object that has to engage with it's user, who by definition could be a different person every time, and prove to be frustrating to a specific sub-group (thieves). It's a complex brief, and the success of the sheffield rack is in assuming responsibility for only a limited number of them, and dealing with them very well: they are easy to use, easy to "understand" in a visual language manner, and very tough to break through. This shifts the responsibility of safety back to the user; if their locks are crap, they can't blame the rack!

With regards your suggestions so far, I think anything that secures a wheel is questionable. What may "fix" the position of a wheel may also provide a point around which a bike could be levered, damaging it badly, intentionally by a thief or accidentally by a clumsy fellow bike-locker. Also, the slack in a lock that you suggest you might try to design out is rarely a result of the rack, and more often a result of the length of the specific lock in question, and as these are available in a multitude of lengths, it would be very impressive if you manage to design a rack that can manipulate slack on such a variable.

It could be an interesting project, make sure you post your design here when you've finished.

Will do Dave, thanks for your thoughts. As it happens I go out with an architect so can sympathise with your academic requirements too! How's it going - have you long to go?

Gavin

A modification to Lumens idea. A sheffield stand with a chain inside it, one end secured on the inside. The other end is accessed via a hole in one of the uprights. Put the bike against the stand, pull the chain out the hole, put it through the back wheel and frame, then up to the horizontal where there's a loop that the chain locked onto. Either use a combination lock integrated into the chain which can be set by the user, or just have a loop where the user puts in their own padlock.

They still have to carry a lock, but it's a small one, it will have to be a minimum size to actually fit around the chain loops, thus enforcing a minimum level of security. No moving parts, the chain could have a spring on the inside to pull it back in when not in use. Have the chain in on upright on one side and the other upright on the other side, still get use out of both sides of the rack and still possible to use additional locks if you wish.

Gavin

Goddamn, beaten to it by Cap'n Midnight ! *Shakes fist*

dave.obrien

jimmy1000 wrote: »

Will do Dave, thanks for your thoughts. As it happens I go out with an architect so can sympathise with your academic requirements too! How's it going - have you long to go?

Another year left is all! What stage of product/industrial design are you at now?

Capt'n Midnight and Gavin have a pretty interesting idea there; a coated, spring retractable, heavy duty cable housed inside the seffield stand. Simple, relatively cheap, fairly foolproof. You'd probably need at least 2 per stand to facilitate locking from either side.

ednwireland

whats a public bike stand ?

there are none in this town

el tel

there are loads of patent applicatons from around.the world relating to bike stands. OP should search them as many attempts have been made to address the various drawbacks of these yokes.

jimmy1000

dave.obrien wrote: »

Another year left is all! What stage of product/industrial design are you at now?

Capt'n Midnight and Gavin have a pretty interesting idea there; a coated, spring retractable, heavy duty cable housed inside the seffield stand. Simple, relatively cheap, fairly foolproof. You'd probably need at least 2 per stand to facilitate locking from either side.

About 2 months in! Actually I'm doing an engineering degree with the OU, this design module is just something that qualifies for the degree and sounded interesting so that's why I ended up on here researching. I'm a building services engineer as it happens - as if I don't get enough of architects in my private life! Still best of luck with the final year, you've a few sleepless nights ahead from what I've heard

CM & Gavin's idea is an interesting one - I do see a flaw in it though, a heavy duty cable on a spring would make a pretty handy weapon in the wrong hands - although maybe I'm just being picky cause I've made up my mind on the avenue I'm going to take!

Moflojo

It would appear to me that a bike stand with any kind of integrated locking mechanism would not sell well to any local authority or private company, unless of course you can design an entirely foolproof and impenetrable locking system. I would imagine that anyone providing a 'public' lock would leave themselves open to all kinds of claims and lawsuits from private citizens whose bicycles will inevitably be stolen from such stands, either through their own stupidity or the ingenuity (pains me to say it) of bicycle thieves.

One simple improvement to Sheffiel Stands would be to change their orientation when installed on footpaths. Most of the time they are installed perpendicular to the kerb, right across the footpath. Simply turning the stands at an angle of 45 degrees to the kerb creates more space on the footpath for pedestrians and is more space-efficient in general. (I think!)