My point is that you've got the benefit from reduced risk on the one hand, and the inconvenience of reducing it on the other. In London, the risk of bike theft is too high to begin with, so you have to swallow quite a lot of inconvenience (heavy locks, constant vigilance) before it starts becoming useless paranoia.
It's your bike. Look after it. Why should anyone else be responsible for your property? ... the owness is on the owner to make their property less easy to make off with
I suppose your point of view depends on whether or not you believe that "society" exists, rather than simply lots of individuals looking out for themselves.
If you're a libertarian, then try looking at it this way: bike theft in London is a nice example of what happens in the second case and why it's better for everyone if it's dealt with by the community (better policing) rather than by individuals (everyone has to carry massive locks etc).
My point is that you've got the benefit from reduced risk on the one hand, and the inconvenience of reducing it on the other. In London, the risk of bike theft is too high to begin with, so you have to swallow quite a lot of inconvenience (heavy locks, constant vigilance) before it starts becoming useless paranoia.
I suppose your point of view depends on whether or not you believe that "society" exists, rather than simply lots of individuals looking out for themselves.
If you're a libertarian, then try looking at it this way: bike theft in London is a nice example of what happens in the second case and why it's better for everyone if it's dealt with by the community (better policing) rather than by individuals (everyone has to carry massive locks etc).