If you thought that anti-angle grinder locks were the latest tech in bike security, think again. This one – from a French start-up calling itself CactUs – is said to release an “ultra-nauseating gas” if it’s cut in order to deter thieves.
Now, before you think that road.cc is having you on with a slightly early April Fools’ Day joke – this is a genuine invention from France that’s now available for pre-order.
In short, the story is that an engineering student in Lyon, Aïko Leroux, has just launched CactUs Lock, an anti-theft device that emits a foul smell when attacked by a thief. The pre-order phase has begun and it’s hoped that an initial run of 100 units will be available by summer.
Okay, so what exactly do you get here? CactUs is a D-lock/U-lock that is 30cm long and 13cm wide. It is said to be made from a high-strength alloy with an anti-grinder coating and weighs less than 2kg.
The unique feature is that the lock contains a pressurised gas and emits “a corpse-like smell when cut”.
No footage exists online yet of the lock emitting its odour as far as we can see, but from the images we can see that the lock is clearly labelled to say what it’s capable of, the idea being to discourage any thief from getting involved in the first place. But if they go ahead, the “ultra-nauseating” gas will be released and, CactUs says, the thief will regret their choice because of the god-awful smell.
And what exactly is that gas? It’s putrescine, which is partly responsible for the foul odour of putrefying flesh. Sounds delightful! CactUs says there is no risk of injury or harm from putrescine at this concentration and volume. However, it is unpleasant and can cause eye irritation and shortness of breath – which can be alleviated by leaving the area and breathing fresh air.
CactUs says the gas cannot be neutralised. Only time can dissipate it and mitigate its effect, and once activated, the lock cannot be re-filled. It is a single-use system.
Hang on, though. Surely, there’s a risk of this stench leaking into your garage, house, flat, or wherever else you lock your bike? CactUs says not. A cut of at least 1cm into the lock’s metal structure is required to release that gas and that’s not going to happen accidentally, while three valves protect the injection system.
Have we been here before? The idea of deterring bike theft with more than just the lock itself is a road that has been reasonably well-trodden – one example is the Oxford Alarm-D Pro, fitted with a 120db movement-activated alarm to scare off would-be thieves.
US-based Skunklock produces a lock that houses “vomit-inducing” chemicals, exposed when it is cut with an angle grinder. Skunklock insists the chemicals are non-toxic and aren’t legally classed as “weaponised”, but it has now produced a non-chemical version because the brand faced “difficulties in terms of selling the original lock in certain countries.”
As previously mentioned, the CactUs lock is in its pre-order phase. You need to pay €179.99 (around £150) to be in line to receive one from the initial batch. That’s compared with a standard expected price of €259.99 (around £217).
If you’re interested, head over to www.cactuslock.com.
France is known for its fragrance industry, but this is an unexpected turn. What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.
23 thoughts on “Bike theft? That stinks! Meet the lock that releases “an ultra-nauseating gas” if it’s cut to deter thieves”
In the UK, even stuff like
In the UK, even stuff like pepper spray is illegal as its only use is effectively assault, so I’m not sure that a lock like this would be safe to use here. Sure, you could cover your bike with “Seriously, mate, just don’t do it!” stickers, but imagine the legal case after someone reacts badly to it…
brooksby wrote:
My initial thought is “no way is that legal”, but I’m not sure what law would ban it. Offences against the Person Act 1861makes it illegal to
“unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person”
but in the case of this lock is the bike thief administering the substance to themselves?
In the case of pepper spray,
In the case of pepper spray, the purpose of it is to incapactate. Being sprayed will effect the eyes and breathing but the victim is targeted with it. This gas isnt incapacitating and just smells really really bad, and moving away from it will will lessen its effect. You are not covered in it and it its non perstant.
I cant see how a bad smell can be made illigal unless its directly targeted. If there were a law against it then you could technically lock up anyone who sprays you with cologne or perfume at an airport or fragrance counter in shopping malls. Who is to say what is or isnt an off putting smell? Farmers couldnt muck spread on their fields, there is a tannery near me. that place smells vile at times andif the wind is blowing the wrong way.
I could also call for Lush to be banned as every time I walk past I feel my sinuses are going to explode
Smoggysteve wrote:
I cant see how a bad smell can be made illigal unless its directly targeted. If there were a law against it then you could technically lock up anyone who sprays you with cologne or perfume at an airport or fragrance counter in shopping malls.— Smoggysteve
They don’t tend to do that without permission though, do they?
You’ve obvisoulsy never been
You’ve obvisoulsy never been accosted by a perfume counter assistant and the farmer and tannery still get to do their thing. Oh, and im sure you have read many times about landfill sites that give off noxious smells into suburban neighbourhoods. There is no law unless it is targeted. In this case the target is self inflicting
Smoggysteve wrote:
I now have a wonderful image of the perfumier distracting you while the farmer and tanner sneak up behind you with their vapours.
I’m no lawyer, but I think
I’m no lawyer, but I think this is one area of law where common sense tends to prevail.
As quiff says, the people at airports only spray you with perfume if you ask for it – I would expect anyone going around spraying perfume at random people would find themselves in trouble.
I’m not quite sure what law this lock might come under, but if (as Tom_77 suggests) it is the OAPA then an important word is “intent” – a farmer spraying muck or Lush selling their wares have no intent to cause injury/aggrievance/annoyance, where as the sole purpose of this lock releasing its gas would be to annoy the would-be thief.
There’s also the threshold as to what is considered “noxious” – the manufacturer states their gas could cause “eye irritation and shortness of breath” – which I would say is a step beyond merely “a bad smell”.
On the other hand, I wonder if this lock could fall under the same bracket as self-defence – i.e. because it is necessarily triggered by someone attempting to commit a crime, and because the gas is (fairly) harmless, it could be construed as proportional force applied to prevent a crime.
The intent is interesting –
The intent is interesting – you might argue that the intent is deterrent and you never intend anyone to actually come into contact with the gas – a bit like barbed wire.
If it rests on intent then
If it rests on intent then the lock is fine if it’s on your own property, you can’t really argue the cyclist was eagerly waiting for their bike to be stolen. It would be like smashing the perfumier’s bottle and then claiming you were assaulted.
Now if you used the lock on someone else’s bike that would be very different.
The cyclist might not be
The cyclist might not be “eagerly waiting” for someone to steal their bike, but the sole intent with using this lock would be the foresight that someone might try to steal the bike, and then intend for that person to then be exposed to the gas.
In your perfumier example, the perfumier presumably has absolutely no expectation/foresight that someone is going to smash the bottle, and is (presumbly) holding the bottle with the sole intent of trying to sell it.
If the perfumier sees someone shoplifting and smashes a perfume bottle at their feet (in the hope of incapacitating them through the overpowering smell) then that would be a more equivalent scenario. Even then, the scenario is distinguished by the perfumier using whatever they have to hand (that simply happens to be overpoweringly smelly by virtue of being perfume) rather than something specifically designed to be smelly for the sole purpose of repelling a thief.
FWIW I’m not saying I have any moral objection to the use of this lock – as per the lockpickinglawyer video posted above, personally I say the thief deserves it (and worse). But, as per the lockpickinglawyer video, that doesn’t mean I’m confident it would be legal (as noted, the skunklock did encounter various legal obstacles).
Surely the intent is for any
Surely the intent is for any potential thief to be dissuaded and not try to steal the bike, therefore not releasing the gas?
I can’t see that this is really any different than those ‘ink bomb’ tags that are sometimes attached to things to discourage theft.
The difference would be the
The difference would be the administration of a (potentially) “noxious substance” (in the eyes of the law) to the thief.
As I understand it, ink tags are primarily intended to deter theft by ruining the clothing, thus rendering it unappealing to steal. Or else the ink is intended to harmlessly mark the thief.
Whilst the gas in the lock solely works by “attacking” (for want of a better word) the would-be thief.
Not in the UK (so legal bets
Not in the UK (so legal bets are off), but the Lock Picking Lawyer has a review of a similar product from a while back here. He wasn’t sure but was doubtful as generally deliberately setting traps is frowed upon (although again “trap” and “harm” are all to be argued over e.g. putting razor wire on top of a tall barrier is legal apparently).
Whilst I was a research tech
Whilst I was a research tech doing microbiology at Reading my boss brought 2 1/2 litre bottle (a winchester, in old school) of Butyric Acid. It was the most disgusting thing I have ever smelt in the lab, and I’ve smelt some foul things. For me an overpowering stench of vomit and excrement. The merest trace of it would stink for ages, and required copious washing. But, bizarrely it was also labelled as kosher, I believe the Americans put it in their chocolate, and is also the smell that gives parmesan it’s deliciousness.
That’s what I’d go for.
I only ever used it in the fume hood, and using disposable stuff so that it could bypass our usual waste streams and go straight for incineration. Unfortunately the PhD student ignored all of my many entreaties, and used it in glass on the bench. It made my workspace reek for months, and the glassware went to autoclaving, and I felt for the wonderful ladies who cleared away our waste and would have got face fulls of that hot, baked stench when opening up the autoclaves. She also hid a bottle of useable dilution in her bench cupboard, everything I’d made up went into the corrosives cabinet under the fume hood, where odours would at least vent to outside.
It was not a pleasant time to be working in that lab.
ktache wrote:
Fascinating – I have always thought Hersheys has a whiff of vomit about it!
quiff wrote:
Apparently Hersheys don’t add it to their chocolate, but as they use lipolysis on the milk (for a longer shelf life), it produces some butyric acid as a by-product.
It’s a stabiliser, it was
It’s a stabiliser, it was first used in WW2 to preserve chocolate in US rations. It allows the milk solids to fully dissolve, US chocolate is less likely to turn “white” from heat exposure and long term storage.
Butyric Acid… was the most
Butyric Acid… was the most disgusting thing I have ever smelt in the lab
Dead skunk is pretty potent. I used to run past a dead skunk for mamy summer months on a campus in California- the nauseating smell persisted even when the carcass had been baked almost to a skeleton by the relentless sun
Its not a booby trap as it
Its not a booby trap as it says clearly right on the side the outcome of cutting it. The same as aerosol paint cans have warnings not to incinerate. The only issue would be if it could be accidentally triggered. That’s only a public hazard if going around cutting locks on other’s property is what the reasonable member of the public should be doing.
Or turning that on its head:
Or turning that on its head: the aforementioned paint can can cause harm if it is *accidentally* damaged or is otherwise used in a way for which it is not designed.
The potential harm caused by this lock is – as they say – a feature and not a bug.
Tuesday – well, if that isn’t
Tuesday – well, if that isn’t today’s canard, then I wonder what is.
I sort of get what some of you are saying, that if it was given cause to do its stinky party trick, it could somehow rebound on the owner – but it’s nothing less than bike thieves deserve.
Not sure what that looks like, though: by what verbal dexterity do you flip yourself from perpetrator to victim?
I imagine our friend Mr Ross would have something to say about it.
“I get that owners have got to protect their property, but this sort of thing is bang out of order. The lad has lived in London all his life and knows his way ’round an angle grinder, but me and his mum was shocked when he come home the other day making a right pen and ink. I said would give that bike owner what-for, I mean there’s a a cost of living crisis how else is meant to make a living on this manor, you tell me” (continues for another 94 paragraphs)
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-accused-smashing-car-windscreen-bike-lock-313269
Grass snakes (which are green
Grass snakes (which are green with a yellow band – like the lock) often emit the odour of rotting flesh if disturbed, along with acting dead, in order to put off predators (and nosy humans)…………..
Natrix wrote:
Doesn’t work so well with carrion eaters though