Spokes of Controversy [1]
Every year, millions of bicycles are stolen in the United States, and while many are recovered, the majority never return to their rightful owners. Theft is obviously wrong, but what about auctioning abandoned bicycles? [SS1] At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, bicycles that are left unattended or confiscated are collected and then auctioned off. UNC Transportation and Parking boasts the availability of “[m]ore than 100 bicycles, ranging in condition from poor to excellent,” including over 25 brands such as Trek and Schwinn. The proceeds of the bike auction are used to provide bike racks on campus, to maintain campus bike repair stations, and to support the university’s bike share program.
Such is university policy, but the mere fact that the bike auction complies with university policy does not on its own entail that it is ethical. Critics have alleged that the policy is not attuned to the realities of student life. Undergraduate and graduate students are not likely to have storage options available. They might move or leave campus for long periods of time before returning.
Critics argue that the university’s ethical responsibility to its community members extends to caring for and attempting to return their lost property. The act of auctioning off these bicycles, particularly without a thorough attempt to find their owners, is arguably a betrayal of this responsibility. One could also argue that given the revenues it generates, this practice creates a perverse incentive for the university not to more effectively reunite lost items with their owners.
On another hand, the bikes UNC auctions are technically abandoned. UNC’s Transportation and Parking Ordinance stipulates that a bicycle is abandoned if “it has been parked illegally for more than ten days or which is determined to be ‘derelict’ or inoperable…”* It also stipulates that “Bicycles that remain stored on racks for more than 30 days at the end of any academic term, including summer sessions, will be deemed University property.” So long as these rules are clearly promulgated, the University seems well within its rights, since they are merely collecting abandoned items, not confiscating the belongings of others.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
At what point does unclaimed property, such as a bicycle, lose its connection to the original owner?
Does UNC have a moral obligation to exhaust all possible means to reunite lost items with their owners before opting to auction them?
Setting aside UNC’s obligations to bike owners, are there any ethical problems associated with purchasing abandoned bicycles?
References
[1] This case was initially authored by, and is dedicated to the memory of UNC student and Parr Center Ethics Scholar Jonathan (Colby) Maynor, whose curiosity and passion for ethical inquiry left an indelible mark on our community.
[2] UNC Chapel Hill, “Bike Auction”
[3] The policies continue: “‘Bicycle’ means every device propelled, at least in part by human power, upon which any person may ride, and supported by either two tandem or three wheels, one of which is
[4] sixteen inches or more in diameter. For the avoidance of doubt, Bicycle includes ‘electric assist Bicycle’ or ‘e-bike’. For the purpose of this Ordinance, a Bicycle is a Vehicle.”
EXPLORE MORE CONTEXT
Article
Article