Six factors are important with regard to enforcement:
1. Unique and theft-resistant identification of (stolen) bicycles.
2. Linking the (stolen) bicycle to the owner, also after mutations (relocation, sale).
3. Maximum reporting of theft.
4. National registration of stolen bicycles.
5. Fast feedback of the ‘stolen or lost’ status in surveillance and tracking of fencing operations.
6. Large-scale deployment of police, the Dutch Public Prosecutor (OM) and any other monitoring authorities.
Between 1985 and 2000, initiatives were developed at various levels. The resulting activities are increasingly being coordinated, mainly with regard to the more technical developments relating to tags (chips) and registration systems.

Three initiatives can be tested against the measures (factors) deemed ‘optimal’ in 1995.
The Theft Prevention Chip (DPC).
Following the example of Batavus, bicycle manufacturers have been incorporating chips into bicycles as standard for over a year. The unique characteristics of the bicycle and the chip are stored in a database accessible to the police. With this measure, the manufacturers have taken an important step. However it remains insufficient if it is the only step.
Although identification (factor 1) and national registration (factor 4) have been addressed, there has been no deployment of police (factor 6). The reason for this is that no agreements have yet been reached. Whether citizens will report theft more often without further encouragement (factor 3) is debatable. Furthermore, the link between bicycle and owner (factor 2) has still not yet been properly regulated, which could easily reduce any increase in willingness to report thefts. In the long term, this makes police deployment even less probable. If thieves subsequently fail to notice that the DPC is working against them, the potential of the DPC may be missed.

The Integral Safety Programme (IVP).
The government, supported by a working group with representatives from municipalities, police and numerous social organisations, has been looking at tackling bicycle theft in the framework of the IVP. In February of this year, the Ministries of V&W (Transport, Public Works and Water Management), BZK (Interior Affairs) and Justice sent a Vision regarding the approach to bicycle theft, an Action agenda for the approach to bicycle theft to the Lower House. This document mentions locks and bicycle parking facilities, but the main emphasis was on bicycle identification as a condition for enforcement. The aim is the fast creation of a national registration system of stolen bicycles, for the meantime based on frame number, postcode and other characteristics. Chip identification of all bicycles will have to be explored and developed, but this is expected to take too long. With the temporary emphasis on frame numbers, the focus is not on surveillance and tracking of stolen bicycles, but only on finding them. The crucial deployment of police and other monitoring authorities is referred to, but no agreements are made. The IVP approach lacks the essential cohesion. The crucial speed in the working methods of inspectors (factor 5), which is also relevant in tracking fencing operations, is still ignored. Consequently, large-scale deployment of police (factor 6) seems improbable, particularly if the database is only partially filled (factor 4). This seems likely because everything depends on the voluntary collaboration of citizens. Due to the inability to link the bicycle to its owner (factor 2), which certainly does not facilitate theft reporting, and the fact that sufficient police deployment is not guaranteed, one wonders whether encouraging these citizens to report more thefts (factor 3) will have any effect. Thus the negative spiral continues.

The Amsterdam approach.
As described in the previous pages, Amsterdam is planning to tackle locations where many bicycles are stolen and handled and register used bicycles en masse. The planned approach of municipality and police is ambitious and comprehensive, but this is not necessarily enough to make it succeed. It is not yet clear whether chips will be incorporated in many of the bicycles in Amsterdam (factor 1) in the short term and consequently whether there can be efficient control in the short term (factor 5). It is also uncertain whether arrangements are in place to ensure that the characteristics of the bicycle (or chip) are also transferred when the bicycle is sold. In Amsterdam, where bicycles often change hands, it is particularly important to be able to link used bicycles to their user (factor 2). Finally, it is uncertain whether more frequent theft reporting will occur (factor 3), something which is essential for filling the registration system of stolen bicycles (factor 4). This input is already a vulnerable element because the incorporation of chips in used bicycles wholly depends on the voluntary collaboration of citizens. Many ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’, but something can be done.
.