reason for downvote: this doesn’t make clear (and is probably wrong about) the tie from game theory descriptions “zero sum” and “nash equilibrium”. I suspect they don’t mean what you think they mean, but perhaps you’re just focusing on other aspects of the decisions, and where the game theory is less directly important.
In fact, neither bike protections nor crime is fixed-sum. If everyone buys locks, thieves go to a bit more effort to defeat the locks, and there’s probably LESS theft, but not zero. The Nash equilibrium for effort-to-secure vs effort-to-steal will depend entirely on payoffs, and there’s no reason to believe it’s legible enough to find (or that it even contains) a zero-crime option.
reason for downvote: this doesn’t make clear (and is probably wrong about) the tie from game theory descriptions “zero sum” and “nash equilibrium”. I suspect they don’t mean what you think they mean, but perhaps you’re just focusing on other aspects of the decisions, and where the game theory is less directly important.
In fact, neither bike protections nor crime is fixed-sum. If everyone buys locks, thieves go to a bit more effort to defeat the locks, and there’s probably LESS theft, but not zero. The Nash equilibrium for effort-to-secure vs effort-to-steal will depend entirely on payoffs, and there’s no reason to believe it’s legible enough to find (or that it even contains) a zero-crime option.