Skunklock - Would you join the revolution?

Fian

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

Moflojo

check_six wrote: »

You don't check your brakes and QR levers/wheelnuts every time you get on your bike? :eek:

I may be a *little* paranoid, but you, Comrade, are far too trusting!

(Also, with the standard of bike racks I am forced to use, stuff does get jostled regularly)

No I don't, should I though? I'd be interested to know what percentage of cyclists actually take such precautions?

Exiled1

tomasrojo wrote: »

One of my housemates was sprayed by a baby juvenile skunk when I lived in Orange County. I cannot express how unbearable the stench was. I think she just threw her clothes out and washed a couple of dozen times. You used to be able to tell when a skunk had been run over on the freeway a couple of hundred metres away, because the smell carried so powerfully.

Anyway, I assume they're not extracting skunk essence. Just reminiscing.

Was 'skunked' many moons ago in New Jersey. Got a spray at 1-2m range from a skunk I had accidentally disturbed in a wooded area. To say the smell was unspeakable is an understatement. The fix was - burn the clothes, bath oneself in tomato juice. Two gallons of tomato juice served its purpose better than I could ever had imagined. It took days for the skunk residue to go away and I was recipient of many funny looks. Fortunately I was working mainly outdoors.

Chuchote

NiallBoo wrote: »

Leaving aside what an asinine idea this is and that it would never be legal for sale here...

I think thieves would actually seek them out, deliberately getting sprayed so that they can sue for damages.
Much better pay-out than a stolen bike.

Assuming any judge could stop laughing (while holding a hanky over face) for long enough to award damages of more than a farthing…

odyssey06

In the spirit of Terry Pratchett...
I think it's fierce cruel to the little skunk to keep him cooped up like that in the bike lock on the off chance he needs to spray a thief.

Hungrycol

Can they not just hold their nose and continue on their merry thievery?

If not and it's more noxious than that then we're talking chemical weapons, no?

Chuchote

Hungrycol wrote: »

Can they not just hold their nose and continue on their merry thievery?

If not and it's more noxious than that then we're talking chemical weapons, no?

As envisaged it's too extreme; I don't want to make even a bike thief vomit and fight for breath. But something that will make him noxious to all women for a couple of weeks, now you're talking.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

If the SkunkLock included a notice: "This lock will spray a noxious, foul-smelling, vomit-inducing cloud in the face of anyone who tries to saw through it" would that be fair warning?

no. you can't bypass the law like that. no more than 'persons entering this property do so at their own risk' has much legal weight. you are inflicting harm or injury as a pre-emptive measure, which is illegal.

Hungrycol

magicbastarder wrote: »

no. you can't bypass the law like that. no more than 'persons entering this property do so at their own risk' has much legal weight. you are inflicting harm or injury as a pre-emptive measure, which is illegal.

I have often toyed with the idea of putting a guillotine on my shed door frame with some Indianan Jones type mechanism. Obtaining the raw materials has been my biggest obstacle so far but in hindsight it might also be illegal.

magicbastarder

as well as somewhat risky to you. as well as requiring the miscreant to enter your shed on his or her hands and knees, for the guillotine to function correctly as one.

Hungrycol

I wasn't fussy what kind of injury the guillotine I inflicted on the scroat as long as he left empty handed, or no handed.

tomasrojo

Funnily enough, Paul Morningstar, bike tool inventor extraordinaire, died when a booby trap he set up on his property went wrong. I had an entertaining email correspondence with him, and he seemed an extremely likeable man, but I guess he had paranoia problems.

omri

check_six wrote: »

I'm still thinking that there is a gap in the market for mounting a powerful web app activated, CO2 actuated harpoon in the seatpost of your bike. Bad guy takes your bike, you press the app based trigger, bad guy gets harpoon in the arse. You simply follow the screams to retrieve your pride and joy.

It's simple, it's effective, it's just the right side of inhumane. Beats the stink out of Skunk-o-lock-o if you ask me!

More details:

Imagine them russian hackers hack your harpoon while youre riding the bike. Bet youd sing a different toon then

tomasrojo

And there it is:

Explosive charges, noxious gas...it won't be long before we need the cycling equivalent of the Geneva Convention.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.ie/2016/10/the-quiz-isnt-dead-its-just-pining-for.html

Chuchote

The maker, Daniel Itskowsky (sp?) was on the BBC World Service today at 6.25 and said the deterrent is rated food-grade; they're released when the thief has cut through 30% of the lock.

magicbastarder

That's a weird definition of food grade if it makes you vomit.

Nekarsulm

magicbastarder wrote: »

That's a weird definition of food grade if it makes you vomit.

"Food Grade" doesn't make something safe for humans.
How many people choke on a piece of meat, or drown in water?

I would buy one in a heart beat.

Chuchote

I'd buy one, but I'd prefer if it emitted a noxious, ineradicable, fluorescent, stinking mess, not under high pressure but just glooping horridly forth with enough rapidity to go over the thief's clothes and person.

magicbastarder

Nekarsulm wrote: »

"Food Grade" doesn't make something safe for humans.
How many people choke on a piece of meat, or drown in water?

ah, but they're mechanical issues with the food. and in the second instance not even when it's being consumed. this stuff is *designed* to make you vomit. it's its raison d'etre.

WindomEarle

Let's say I buy a Skunklock as a deterrant. Thief sees the lock and thinks "Well, I'm not going to cut through that" but he decides to loosen the nuts on my wheels or pops open my brakes as a kind of retaliation.

More likely that the thief moves on to the bike next door and whips that instead. These guys just want the cash they are going to get by selling the bike. They don't have time for retaliation.

rubadub

MB Lacey wrote: »

I'm assuming the chemical is only really noxious to the up close and personal person standing over the lock. How likely is it that children, elderly, sick would be standing right next to the person cutting the lock?.

Pepper spray effects people in a wide range around them, even outdoors. In movies it is not realistic at all, its often in comedies, some woman sprays a lad in the face in a car, she would be in absolute bits too. It if really is as effective as they say (which I doubt) then it would not surprise me if people in a wide range were effected to some degree.

NiallBoo wrote: »

You could and you should, along with an assault conviction...

Anyway, bottom line is that having that device here implies your intention to cause harm to someone. If someone is harmed by it then you've harmed someone in adeliberate and premeditated fashion. Yes the other person is an idiot, but still a person.
.

I think thieves would actually seek them out, deliberately getting sprayed so that they can sue for damages.
Much better pay-out than a stolen bike.

Do you think people might sue for other protections. e.g. some locks might have rotating discs to make it very dangerous to attempt to cut them with grinders. Would you be worried thieves might sue if they lose a finger trying to grind these? a thick heavy duty lock would get very hot when cut, a thief could burn themselves on it. The fumes of the burning plastic on the lock could have toxic effects, far more than this skunk smell. If your brake has a problem where if you pull it too hard it locks up the wheel would you be worried about that being robbed and the thief coming a cropper. I would think these are ludicrous but think your suggestion that thieves would purposely get sprayed is more unlikely so would like a genuine answer.

I take the saddle off my bike to make unsafe and less attractive to theives, I also have let the air out tyres. Hope I don't get sued...

Moflojo wrote: »

If physical harm & booby-trapping becomes fair game (the owners brought it into play) then what's to stop the thieves from fighting fire with fire?

Let's say I buy a Skunklock as a deterrant. Thief sees the lock and thinks "Well, I'm not going to cut through that" but he decides to loosen the nuts on my wheels or pops open my brakes as a kind of retaliation..

I have had saddles, wheels, brakes tampered with over the years. I always check if it was locked in a area I think its likely to happen. Have heard of it happening to lots of people. I thought checking these things was the done thing. They already do fight fire with fire, people have been threatened with the tools they are using to cut the lock when confronted.

magicbastarder wrote: »

no. you can't bypass the law like that. no more than 'persons entering this property do so at their own risk' has much legal weight. you are inflicting harm or injury as a pre-emptive measure, which is illegal.

How common is this suing though? 1 in 20 houses in the UK are supposed to have booby traps. You hear of the odd case of it becoming a legal matter, which would suggest a tiny minority actually sue, if the traps are that common.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1177757/One-20-Britons-booby-trap-homes-deter-burglars--risking-jail.html

Pickpocket

You could also just smear your own faeces all over the bike. You'd want to be mad to rob a bike in that condition.

HivemindXX

rubadub wrote: »

Do you think people might sue for other protections. e.g. some locks might have rotating discs to make it very dangerous to attempt to cut them with grinders. Would you be worried thieves might sue if they lose a finger trying to grind these? a thick heavy duty lock would get very hot when cut, a thief could burn themselves on it. The fumes of the burning plastic on the lock could have toxic effects, far more than this skunk smell.

Those are all examples of things which make the lock more difficult to break. They are not things designed to injure in an attempt to deter someone.

If you are genuinely worried then no need to fear! If you are trying to make the point that this lock is no different that a lock with rotating cylinders then you are failing.

rubadub

HivemindXX wrote: »

If you are trying to make the point that this lock is no different that a lock with rotating cylinders then you are failing.

I never said it was "no different" so don't worry. The rotating cylinders make it a danger to try and cut, possibly more likely to sue as proper damage could be done while trying to cut it. This device produces a non toxic deterrent, no harm comes to the thief. If a theif was robbing my bike and I ran by and dropped a stink bomb do any posters really think a judge in Ireland would entertain a thief trying to sue me?

Thinking of it again, it is more similar to bike locks equipped with loud alarms, like rape alarms. They might have a ringing in their ears and be uncomfortable, as might people nearby. Are people worried about those locks too?

magicbastarder

surely the main point of the rotating cylinders makes it more difficult to cut, as the cylinder will rotate with the disc and thus prevent the cutting action? it may be more dangerous, but that's a side effect of the principle.

and i think a stink bomb or sound bomb is quite a bit removed from something designed to cause nausea and vomiting.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

surely the main point of the rotating cylinders makes it more difficult to cut, as the cylinder will rotate with the disc and thus prevent the cutting action? it may be more dangerous, but that's a side effect of the principle.

and i think a stink bomb or sound bomb is quite a bit removed from something designed to cause nausea and vomiting.

The rotating cylinders are inside the locking mechanism at the locking end, though, they're not part of the U.

Lumen

Presumably the legal position depends partly on whether the lock is clearly marked as containing a noxious substance, at least in a contributory negligence sense. You'd probably want that anyway in case some council or emergency workers decides (for good reason or bad) that your bike is causing an obstruction and cuts off the lock.

But then you'd have the issue of it being nicked in the dark...

rubadub

magicbastarder wrote: »

and i think a stink bomb or sound bomb is quite a bit removed from something designed to cause nausea and vomiting.

Far removed? surely you are not that gullible. I have no doubt it would contain gases very similar if not the same as to those used in stink bombs, which could be described as having emetic effects (vomit inducing effects).

Or do you really believe they have made some James Bond type gas which will cause immediate vomiting in anyone who cuts the lock? I have some magic beans you might be interested in. If a gas like this is available on the free market I think that would be far bigger news than its use in a lock.

http://skunklock.com/faq/

Are any of the formulas we use lethal or harmful?

No! Our formulas are not designed to cause any sort of permanent harm to thieves and is predominantly made up of naturally occurring fatty acids commonly found in rancid butter, parmesan cheese, and our very own vomit. However, they are all highly effective as deterrent because of their extremely unpleasant and vomit inducing smells.

It seems the lock contains a mixture of pepper spray and stink bomb type cases. The pepper spray version would likely be illegal here. They say they have a version without it due to restrictions.

Sounds like they are using butyric acid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stink_bomb

Is it legal?

We have taken the necessary precautions to ensure that the SkunkLock is legal and compliant with US laws and regulations. On March 2016, we conducted a survey of state laws within the United States regarding the sale and ownership of SkunkLock products. We have identified that there are some possible limitations of shipping the SkunkLock to certain states within the US due to the fact that some versions of the SkunkLock may contain capsaicin compounds. We know that these regulations were enacted with pepper spray in mind. Although the SkunkLock is not strictly a pepper spray product, in order to ensure compliance, we may initially reserve our right to refuse directly selling and shipping our SkunkLock product to certain states or countries. However, we also reserve the right to ship SkunkLock products that contain our alternative formula that does not utilize capsaicin as a primary irritant; thus, ensuring our compliance in those states. Please visit our website for further information and our latest stance on legal compliance and check with your local and State laws as these may differ from state to state and country by country.

Do you believe their other claims?

SKUNKLOCK is manufactured from the strongest materials available

The SkunkLock is just as strong if not stronger than the highest quality U-Locks on the market

the structural integrity of the SkunkLock is comparable to other "super-premium" U-Locks on the market ($100+)

so comparable to the best ongaurd & kryptontie NY range which would be the same price. They do not reveal the shackle thickness, and more importantly how much material is missing as its really a tube.

A man approaches a bicycle, handheld electric saw at the ready. He powers it on, starts to drill, and is shot in the face with a noxious spray that makes him vomit uncontrollably. This is the dream of the inventors of SkunkLock.

no lie there, they're dreaming...

“At two feet it was pretty bad. It was absolutely vomit inducing in 99% of people. At five feet it’s very noticeable and the initial reaction is to move away from it. At 10ft it’s definitely detectable and very unpleasant.”

note they do not claim 99% of people vomited uncontrollably. I expect it might be a questionnaire saying "did you feel nauseous"