XenoVibe
Well-known member
bring your bike inside. Problem solved.
|
|
|
A wild idea to protect bikes in a condo
- Thread starter codemonk
- Start date
Ask how many guys on this forum have a video of their bike being stolen. Now, how many of those videos got their bikes back. Stolen plates and hoodies are all it takes to beat a camera.
BigEvilDoer
Well-known member
I think he's planning on a reverse sensor.
If the fob IS detected, then door doesn't open. So dead batteries would allow thieves to exit.
Same goes with the safety hazard idea - door won't open if fob is detected, so all you have to do is throw fob down the garage and it'll open.
Alternately, are there any fobs that have simple on/off switches? Done your ride, turn fob on and store under seat. Fob detected, door doesn't open. If you're the owner, you do a mental "dumb@ss", flip the switch and you're good to go.
Since these fobs are also low voltage, you could theoretically wire them to the electrical system. If bike is on, fob turns off, allowing exit/entry. If bike is off, fob turns on, disallowing exit/entry.
Sounds like a brilliant idea for Dragon's Den.
Last edited:
codemonk
Well-known member
The idea isnt bad. They trouble would be getting buy in from condo owners.
+1
I think a better business model would be a downtown-core parking lot that caters to motorcyclists, maybe with some type of built-in insurance coverage.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Does it fail open? Or close?
Example: if one of the components is down (any component, including but not limited to the bluetooth, the silent alarm via wi fi, etc. etc.) will the door open or stays permanently closed?
Example: if one of the components is down (any component, including but not limited to the bluetooth, the silent alarm via wi fi, etc. etc.) will the door open or stays permanently closed?
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
The system should not lock any one inside for obvious reasons (not only a fire hazard situation, there are thousands of good reasons to not lock any of your neighbors in), therefore, if any part of the system fails, it should default to "anyone can exit, no matter what" (fail open).
The more unreliable parts it has, the more likely it is it will fail, allowing a thief to still get away.
codemonk
Well-known member
Of course the idea can be further developed. I just optimized it for the low cost and used one fob but lets double up the fobs and we have some extra convenience and a way more idiot proof system:
- One fob (ID Fob) is semi-permanently placed on the bike. Only replaced when battery replacement needed.
- The second fob (control Fob) is on you keychain.
Exit is only granted when both fob is detected by the door. This setup is absolutely idiot proof and fully automatic but a tad more expensive as we need twice as many fobs and slightly more administration.
The principal idea is that we do not directly protect the assets but rather control the access by being able to identify silently what is passing through the door. This silent access control allows us to change the risk / reward equation that we have with thief's. If this system gets introduced the thief's face a number of challenges:
- They cannot tell if a condo has or has not installed it until they try
- Actually the police do have pretty good responsiveness for crimes in progress. Even a short delay might be long enough to get a police cruiser waiting at the exit for them
- Even if they abandon their vehicle there is a massive opportunity cost for them.
- Police would love those abandoned stolen cars in the condo exits.
They would have the following:
~ Recovered a stolen vehicle.
~ Prevented a motorcycle theft
~ Video, Fingerprint and perhaps DNA evidence which would increase the probability that sooner or later the thief(s) are identified.
The real purpose is not to catch the thief(s) as much as we would like to. The main purpose is to protect our assets and making it very expensive and risky for the thief's to attempt to take it away. Catching the thief(s) is expensive, dangerous and the business off the police.
- One fob (ID Fob) is semi-permanently placed on the bike. Only replaced when battery replacement needed.
- The second fob (control Fob) is on you keychain.
Exit is only granted when both fob is detected by the door. This setup is absolutely idiot proof and fully automatic but a tad more expensive as we need twice as many fobs and slightly more administration.
The principal idea is that we do not directly protect the assets but rather control the access by being able to identify silently what is passing through the door. This silent access control allows us to change the risk / reward equation that we have with thief's. If this system gets introduced the thief's face a number of challenges:
- They cannot tell if a condo has or has not installed it until they try
- Actually the police do have pretty good responsiveness for crimes in progress. Even a short delay might be long enough to get a police cruiser waiting at the exit for them
- Even if they abandon their vehicle there is a massive opportunity cost for them.
- Police would love those abandoned stolen cars in the condo exits.
They would have the following:
~ Recovered a stolen vehicle.
~ Prevented a motorcycle theft
~ Video, Fingerprint and perhaps DNA evidence which would increase the probability that sooner or later the thief(s) are identified.
The real purpose is not to catch the thief(s) as much as we would like to. The main purpose is to protect our assets and making it very expensive and risky for the thief's to attempt to take it away. Catching the thief(s) is expensive, dangerous and the business off the police.
Last edited:
codemonk
Well-known member
The default failure mode is open the door. No life is worth any motorcycles
The system would prevent exiting only if it is fully functional and positively identified a stolen vehicle.
Safety would be absolutely the first priority - including the life and well being of the thief(s).
The system would prevent exiting only if it is fully functional and positively identified a stolen vehicle.
Safety would be absolutely the first priority - including the life and well being of the thief(s).
codemonk
Well-known member
Yes , this would be the biggest challenge. I would aproach this from an insurance angle something like this:
- Does not cost anything to the condo as it is paid by monthly fees
- Decreases theft , (mention statistics here....)
- Condo might save some money on insurance if the insure would give discount to places having this system
The system doesn't lock anyone inside ... only their vehicle. In the event of a fire or other emergency, the people, including the thieves, are free to exit their vehicle and walk out via the normal fire exit doors.
I like the idea but I think the biggest uphill battle will be convincing condo associations/owners that they need to do anything. By implementing a system like this, in effect they take a degree of responsibility for the system in case it fails (If they implement a system like this and someone still manages to steal your vehicle, is the condo association liable because their system failed?)
If the system becomes widespread, thieves would know about it and know about the likely places for people to be putting that transmitter ... and simply bust open your passenger seat and chuck it out ...
I think it would be easier to control access of vehicles going IN to the parking garage. Residents only; anyone without a parking pass has to park in a separate area without access to the residents parking area. Not perfect ... a stolen or lent out parking pass can still cause a problem.
I like the idea but I think the biggest uphill battle will be convincing condo associations/owners that they need to do anything. By implementing a system like this, in effect they take a degree of responsibility for the system in case it fails (If they implement a system like this and someone still manages to steal your vehicle, is the condo association liable because their system failed?)
If the system becomes widespread, thieves would know about it and know about the likely places for people to be putting that transmitter ... and simply bust open your passenger seat and chuck it out ...
I think it would be easier to control access of vehicles going IN to the parking garage. Residents only; anyone without a parking pass has to park in a separate area without access to the residents parking area. Not perfect ... a stolen or lent out parking pass can still cause a problem.
This is a great idea and one of the most Board of Directors (which is the hard nut to crack) friendly ones I've ever seen.
3 issues come to mind:
1. Getting the overnight "Security" staff (if any) to care/pay attention to the alarm.
2. Would the fobs be ID tagged and registered?
3. Getting it wired into the buildings' current harness, some are absolute nightmares (I've worked Security/Operations and management at condos).
Suggestion:
People at the condo I work on and off at pay $55 for a remote/fob combo, if you make the idea work and actually want to market it, make sure the board is making a stiff profit on it for their reserve fund. 400% markup on things like access fobs and keys is not unheard of and residents are generally willing to pay.
If you ever make something out of this idea and have a proposal ready I know people in the Management/Developer industry.
3 issues come to mind:
1. Getting the overnight "Security" staff (if any) to care/pay attention to the alarm.
2. Would the fobs be ID tagged and registered?
3. Getting it wired into the buildings' current harness, some are absolute nightmares (I've worked Security/Operations and management at condos).
Suggestion:
People at the condo I work on and off at pay $55 for a remote/fob combo, if you make the idea work and actually want to market it, make sure the board is making a stiff profit on it for their reserve fund. 400% markup on things like access fobs and keys is not unheard of and residents are generally willing to pay.
If you ever make something out of this idea and have a proposal ready I know people in the Management/Developer industry.
Last edited:
codemonk
Well-known member
Yes exactly.
This is a well established protocol in other industries. Contracts and legal papers should be written very carefully and prior precedents researched of course. Have you ever read the terms and conditions of you home alarm system ?
Not really. These fobs are so small and innocent looking that they are not easy to find. How do you know that you found all of them ? What makes you think that there is only one fob on the bike ? What if mine is inside my headlight bucket? How much time do you willing to waste searching for something like this while committing a crime ?
Not really. I can only control something that I can track .....
Last edited:
codemonk
Well-known member
Yes, this is one of the hardest part: Computers and systems are easy. Forcing people to do what they supposed to do is much harder.
This is the reason why the owner is notified also via email.
Also consider this: If you are thief and you are sitting in front of a closed door waiting for 5 minutes to exit do you assume that the security is sleeping or that the police is on its way to pick you up? When is the point when they would just flee leaving everything behind ? How would the security guy explain next day that they did not realized that there is a stolen van with a bike in it in the exit lane for hours ? What would the board do with a security guy like this ?
Yes
I assume that we have standard 120 Volt power that drives the garage door opener so that can be used. I'm more concerned about wi-fi and internet connectivity in a thick concrete underground garage. The system would work in an off-line mode but the alarms need connectivity.
It is a good point. I would try to convince the board to keep the monthly rate as low as possible for the owners but charge a much higher rate for the overnight visitor. This way the profit would come from the visitors not the owners. They might like that even better.
Thank you for the offer.
Last edited:
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Guys, I like the idea but I have to keep asking, just to play devil's advocate.
I wrote above that there are thousands of good reasons not to lock any of your neighbors in. It comes down to liability.
Think of this example:
- Thief steals bike in the middle of the day.
- He tries to exit the building but door does not open. He panics and abandons cube van blocking the exit, takes the keys from the ignition, and runs.
- One of the residents of the building is pregnant and has to get to the hospital for a C section. 5 minutes after the thief left, she tries to exit the parking lot. Exit is blocked. It takes 2 hours to get the police on site and a towing truck.
- She is delayed to her surgery and because she is a lawyer, she decides to sue the condo corporation. Whose liability is it? Who is going to pay for legal fees? How much more additional insurance do you have to carry?
OP, sounds like a good idea.
There are a few flaws.
The first is parking. Until a rider actually purchases or rents a spot specifically for his bike, that vehicle doesn't exist from a legal perspective.
Secondly, your typical condo only has, at best, 1 or 2 bikes for every 100 suites. Its going to cost a little more than a couple of bucks per month per user.
In short, as usual, we as riders tend to be our own worst enemies.
There are a few flaws.
The first is parking. Until a rider actually purchases or rents a spot specifically for his bike, that vehicle doesn't exist from a legal perspective.
Secondly, your typical condo only has, at best, 1 or 2 bikes for every 100 suites. Its going to cost a little more than a couple of bucks per month per user.
In short, as usual, we as riders tend to be our own worst enemies.
Go walk around a condo parking garage. It's way higher than that.
Thanks for the tip but I wasn't guessing, I stated an average from the 5 downtown projects that I'm involved in.
|
|
|
|
|