Ghost Bikes

NervexProf

See here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art

Are you in favour of these tributes? - or do they give the impression that cycling is more dangerous than in fact it is?

Link to organisers website here: http://www.ghostcycle.org/

dondare

Ghost bikes are going to send out entirely the wrong message about how dangerous cycling is. This leads to fewer people being prepared to take it up or allow their children to take it up, and a view that cyclists who do get killed are to blame for their own deaths for being so foolhardy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I want my roadside memorial to be a speed camera.

NGale

to be honest it's no different than the people who leave flowers beside the road when a motorist or pedestrian is killed at a certain place. It's the same effect, make people think.

I'm sure one will spring up near Taunton where the John O Groats to Lands End cyclist was killed the other day. I was unfortunate enough to take one of the many calls to that collision the other day

charlie_lcc

There is an article in todays Observer on ghost bikes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art
I spoke to the journalist a couple of time, I think she wanted to find a cycling organisation that would condemn ghost bikes. She did take on our point about respecting the views of the family, and not causing concern.

Later I spoke with the partner of one of the people killed recently, he was ok with the ghost bike as it marked the place of her death and was a message to stir people to try prevent further deaths. He and the family have their own private memorial to her, he doesn't see the ghost bike as a permanent installation.

Just think what it would be like if we had roadside memorials to all the almost 500,000 people killed by motor vehicles since 1896 ...

laughingboy

Very simply, despite the poignancy of these memorials, I think that they do not serve the cause of cycling.

The single most effective way to improve the safety of cyclists is to increase the numbers of cyclists, in my opinion. Drawing attention to the worst that can happen will not help achieve this.

cougie

If it is where a cyclist has been killed - then I think we should have it there.

Theres a road near us that has '2 deaths in 3 years' on it. That doesnt really sound that much to me - and probably wouldnt affect my driving much.

nicklouse

I always wondered what these white bikes were.

I thought they were advertising a Flower shop.


If people do not know what they are for they are useless.

biondino

As a powerful and poignant tribute to a friend or comrade then they're anything but useless. As a tool for promoting road safety, maybe.

downfader

If I die on the roads or by car I want them to play Highway To Hell (AC-DC) to remember me, not leave flowers of a white bike by the road. I've said this to friends and family that I'd be quite offended if I thought a road side memorial would pop up. Cant really explain why othert than it seems to distract road users.

System_1

laughingboy wrote:

Very simply, despite the poignancy of these memorials, I think that they do not serve the cause of cycling.

The single most effective way to improve the safety of cyclists is to increase the numbers of cyclists, in my opinion. Drawing attention to the worst that can happen will not help achieve this.

What cause of cycling? It's a fun and effective mode of transport not a political stance, and IMO the fact that someone, who quite possibly doesn't even know the person invovlved, saw fit to mark their passing by leaving a tribute, is a good thing. What good does it do to cycling in general to completely ignore, and brush under the carpet, the bad things that happen? Only by acknowledging these things can change be made.

A lot of the time cyclists are seen as just people on bikes and I think these ghost bikes help build a sense of community and show potential cyclists that they are not alone, that if the very worst does happen, that they will be missed even if only because they were 'one of us'. What cycling needs is a sense of community, and not just the snobbish club cyclist way of thinking we have at the moment. Everyone on two wheels needs to be involved, from the old lady on the sit up and beg shopper to the lycra clad carbon equipped racer. To borrow a phrase from a friend of mine 'no matter what you ride, as long as you do'.

laughingboy

System wrote:

laughingboy wrote:

Very simply, despite the poignancy of these memorials, I think that they do not serve the cause of cycling.

The single most effective way to improve the safety of cyclists is to increase the numbers of cyclists, in my opinion. Drawing attention to the worst that can happen will not help achieve this.

What cause of cycling? It's a fun and effective mode of transport not a political stance, and IMO the fact that someone, who quite possibly doesn't even know the person invovlved, saw fit to mark their passing by leaving a tribute, is a good thing. What good does it do to cycling in general to completely ignore, and brush under the carpet, the bad things that happen? Only by acknowledging these things can change be made.

A lot of the time cyclists are seen as just people on bikes and I think these ghost bikes help build a sense of community and show potential cyclists that they are not alone, that if the very worst does happen, that they will be missed even if only because they were 'one of us'. What cycling needs is a sense of community, and not just the snobbish club cyclist way of thinking we have at the moment. Everyone on two wheels needs to be involved, from the old lady on the sit up and beg shopper to the lycra clad carbon equipped racer. To borrow a phrase from a friend of mine 'no matter what you ride, as long as you do'.

I am in almost total agreement with everything you say; to the extent that I would happily have said your last half a paragraph. When I mentioned the 'cause' of cycling, I did not mean that it is a political act (although I would admit that a small part of the reason I cycle is because I do not like our society's over-reliance on the car). I meant that cycling needs to move beyond a position where, on arriving at work, people say to me 'you're mad' to a position where they ask me if I had a good journey. Or better still that I was not almost alone in cycling to my work. As it stands in Britain, a lot of people in Britain see cycling as a lunatic minority of red-light-jumping, holier-than-thou, irritants.

So, one major issue facing cycling is that public perception needs to change. One of the drivers behind this perception is that people think that cycling is more dangerous than it is. Even without ghost bikes, everyone is already aware of the fact that a cyclist can get killed (hence, 'you're mad"). My fear is that ghost bikes only serve to make this statistically small risk seem larger than the reality.

So, we disagree about the usefulness of the ghost bikes, but in other terms I really like your post. I think that your emphasis on acting as a community is spot on. We need to act as a community, and, as well as using forums like this to generate that sense of community, we need organisations such as the CTC, LCC, etc. to help lead this.

Littigator

I think if they accord with the wishes of grieving people the killed cyclist has left behind they are a very poignant and touching memorial. But I disagree with them being used as a political statement by groups who had no connection with the individual.

People have the right to do this for their loved and lost ones and other cyclists here who say they should not because it harms the cause of cycling are being selfish.

Equally as selfish as those who use these memorials for a political cause without the backing or support of the grieving friends and families.

always_tyred

Reading throught the Seattle entries, it appears that these bikes aren't necessarily placed where there have been fatalities. Am I misunderstanding?

If its a means to highlight dangerous junctions, my reaction to the idea is rather different from it being a memorial to a death.

Littigator

The Seattle group does highlight dangerous junctions instead of using them as memorials to the dead yes. The Guardian article does mention that.

spen666

System wrote:

...

.... IMO the fact that someone, who quite possibly doesn't even know the person invovlved, saw fit to mark their passing by leaving a tribute, is a good thing. ....

Why is is good for someone to leave a tribute to someone they did not know?
On a slightly different note, how can you leave a TRIBUTE to someone you did not know?

biondino

spen666 wrote:

System wrote:

...

.... IMO the fact that someone, who quite possibly doesn't even know the person invovlved, saw fit to mark their passing by leaving a tribute, is a good thing. ....

Why is is good for someone to leave a tribute to someone they did not know?
On a slightly different note, how can you leave a TRIBUTE to someone you did not know?

Unless this is just some pedantic toss about the exact meaning of the word tribute in which case get away wi' you.

spen666

biondino wrote:

spen666 wrote:

System wrote:

...

.... IMO the fact that someone, who quite possibly doesn't even know the person invovlved, saw fit to mark their passing by leaving a tribute, is a good thing. ....

Why is is good for someone to leave a tribute to someone they did not know?
On a slightly different note, how can you leave a TRIBUTE to someone you did not know?

...

Unless this is just some pedantic toss about the exact meaning of the word tribute in which case get away wi' you.

Grow up little boy- if you can't understand English ask someone to help you. :twisted: :twisted:

As I said before, how do you leave a TRIBUTE to someone you don't know?

Its a simple question. If you don't know the answer, sit silently instead of drawing attention to your lack of knowledge

spen666

for the benefit of certain people, here is a definition of the word tribute [from dictionary.com

1. a gift, testimonial, compliment, or the like, given as due or in acknowledgment of gratitude or esteem.

now perhaps you may understand the question

What gratitude do you have for some one you don't know dying in a RTA?
OR
Why do you hold someone who died in a RTA in esteem?

They died and that is a tragedy. no one with any sense or feelings would wish that on anyone else. But how do you pay tribute to someone you do not know?

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

for the benefit of certain people, here is a definition of the word tribute [from dictionary.com

1. a gift, testimonial, compliment, or the like, given as due or in acknowledgment of gratitude or esteem.

now perhaps you may understand the question

What gratitude do you have for some one you don't know dying in a RTA?
OR
Why do you hold someone who died in a RTA in esteem?

They died and that is a tragedy. no one with any sense or feelings would wish that on anyone else. But how do you pay tribute to someone you do not know?

If one admires all cyclists, one could legitimately leave a tribute so any individual known to have been a cyclist.

Indeed, I can EVEN pay tribute to Spen666, purely on the basis that I believe it to be true that Spen666 cycles to work. This is admirable behaviour which I would like to pay tribute to.

Feltup

It seems from the Observer report that this

James, who was 37, was pushing his bike across the road when he was hit by a car driven by 24 year-old Sabrina Harman. She was over the drink-drive limit and speeding and had a previous conviction for drink-driving. She had been banned for a year and still had not regained her full licence.

was classed as a cycling fatality, it is not, it is a pedestrian fatality. It is still tragic but this is why so many statics are wrong and in this case give the wrong impression that cycling is more dangerous than it is.

Littigator

BD and Spen stop hijacking this thread for your ridiculous flirtations with each other. This has some good content and we don't want it spoilt by your little tiffs

Thankyouverymuch

biondino

spen666 wrote:

biondino wrote:

spen666 wrote:

System wrote:

...

.... IMO the fact that someone, who quite possibly doesn't even know the person invovlved, saw fit to mark their passing by leaving a tribute, is a good thing. ....

Why is is good for someone to leave a tribute to someone they did not know?
On a slightly different note, how can you leave a TRIBUTE to someone you did not know?

...

Unless this is just some pedantic toss about the exact meaning of the word tribute in which case get away wi' you.

Grow up little boy- if you can't understand English ask someone to help you. :twisted: :twisted:

As I said before, how do you leave a TRIBUTE to someone you don't know?

Its a simple question. If you don't know the answer, sit silently instead of drawing attention to your lack of knowledge

Wow you're a d!ck.

laughingboy

Littigator wrote:

I think if they accord with the wishes of grieving people the killed cyclist has left behind they are a very poignant and touching memorial. But I disagree with them being used as a political statement by groups who had no connection with the individual.

People have the right to do this for their loved and lost ones and other cyclists here who say they should not because it harms the cause of cycling are being selfish.

Equally as selfish as those who use these memorials for a political cause without the backing or support of the grieving friends and families.

Perhaps you are right that it is a selfish attitude to object to someone's memorial, and is none of my or anyone else's business to do so. I can accept that argument.

But these are public memorials to private individuals - this is not Nelson, or Churchill, where a public memorial is warranted to commemorate what these individuals stood for. So, without wanting to be unsympathetic to the personal tragedy, in the case of a road traffic fatality it seems a bit odd to me that a public memorial is wanted. In which case, for me, the very fact that these are public makes it seem that they are there to make a point. They seem to say: "Look. Look what happened." From what I have seen and read, they are not memorials to the individual (are they individualised, at all?), but rather they are a memorial to a class of people who died in a particular way. Now I may be wrong, but I think that to some extent - no matter how unintentionally - because they are public, they are political.

The one mitigating factor that weakens their political nature is that they are, or may be, temporary.

As for the other class of Ghost Bikes - the Seattle bikes, where a cyclist 'was struck" (but not killed) - what is the point they are making, if not a political one?

biondino

But well done Spen. You must be so proud of your ability to put people down based on a slight misuse of a word (in an instance where even a dullard like you could understand what they meant with 1 millisecond's consideration). Unfortunately, you got that wrong too. My post was of flowers left in memory of Princess Diana, held very much in esteem by millions of (slightly peculiar) people across the country. So actually, I got it right. Suck me.

Littigator

laughingboy wrote:

Perhaps you are right that it is a selfish attitude to object to someone's memorial, and is none of my or anyone else's business to do so. I can accept that argument.

But these are public memorials to private individuals - this is not Nelson, or Churchill, where a public memorial is warranted to commemorate what these individuals stood for. So, without wanting to be unsympathetic to the personal tragedy, in the case of a road traffic fatality it seems a bit odd to me that a public memorial is wanted. In which case, for me, the very fact that these are public makes it seem that they are there to make a point. They seem to say: "Look. Look what happened." From what I have seen and read, they are not memorials to the individual (are they individualised, at all?), but rather they are a memorial to a class of people who died in a particular way. Now I may be wrong, but I think that to some extent - no matter how unintentionally - because they are public, they are political.

The one mitigating factor that weakens their political nature is that they are, or may be, temporary.

As for the other class of Ghost Bikes - the Seattle bikes, where a cyclist 'was struck" (but not killed) - what is the point they are making, if not a political one?

You are being unsympathetic so don't bother saying you don't intend to be. Secondly, how very rude unfeeling and unsympathetic to call someone odd that they would want to put a public memorial to someone they knew privately and then suggest there is some POLITICAL motivation for this.

Is a gravestone a political statement? Are flowers where any kind of RTA occured a political statement. Please read my post carefully and ensure you understood it because in essence what I was trying to say was a personal tribute is ok, a political one is not. I think you are missing my point somewhat, but given the circular and confused nature of your first post I think you have trouble following your own arguments let alone anyone elses.

Littigator

ps, I forgot contradictory, in your first post you kept contradicting yourself as well

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

Wow you're a d!ck.

Is that a tribute?

Littigator

Always Tyred wrote:

biondino wrote:

Wow you're a d!ck.

Is that a tribute?

Nah it can't be...there weren't any flowers involved

laughingboy

Littigator wrote:

laughingboy wrote:

Is a gravestone a political statement? Are flowers where any kind of RTA occured a political statement. Please read my post carefully and ensure you understood it because in essence what I was trying to say was a personal tribute is ok, a political one is not. I think you are missing my point somewhat, but given the circular and confused nature of your first post I think you have trouble following your own arguments let alone anyone elses.

Firstly, I read and understood your post, and accepted the idea that my attitude could be construed as selfish. I then went on to say why I could accept that argument on the one hand, whilst still having misgivings about these memorials. It is not because I am happy being selfish! In fact, I am trying to outline a position where I explain why - whilst I have tremendous sympathy for the loved ones of the deceased - I am uneasy with these memorials. I will go on to explain in more detail.

Yes, I understood your argument that a personal tribute is OK, but a political one is not. And, again, I agree. So, I did not challenge that point. Indeed, my point about the Seattle 'non-fatalities' Ghost Bikes' being political followed your argument completely. I think that we would both agree that this class of Ghost Bikes is inappropriate, because they are almost solely political (note, though, that I accept that one cannot be categorical about the motives for any of these Ghost Bikes. The motives are various.)

The difficult area, and the area around which you believe I am confused/contradictory is confined to the Ghost Bikes that mark fatalities. The point at issue for me is where the personal element ends, and the political element begins. This is more subjective.

My general feeling, as set out in my previous post, is that I am uncomfortable about any semi-permanent, or permanent memorial to a private individual in a public space.

You ask if a gravestone is a political act. A fair question. Graveyards seem to me a separate case, being publicly-sanctioned places of remembrance. We do not erect gravestones on public thoroughfares. The erection of gravestones is governed by law, I believe, and by societal/religious tradition. They seem therefore to reinforce my position that memorials are natural expressions of grief, but that society has agreed that they should be appropriate, including appropriately placed.

As I have said, the only exceptions to this placing of permanent memorials, seem to be memorials to public figures who embody something that our society wishes to commemorate.

So, to conclude: my reservations about these bikes are that in placing them - as semi-permanent memorials - outside the societally accepted areas, they are intrusive and political. They also, as the Guardian article describes, exaggerate the risk of cycling. I quote from the article:

"Not all cyclists are in favour, however; some argue that they give the impression cycling is more dangerous than it is.

Within half an hour's bike ride from my house, I can see three, which seems a scary amount of death on two wheels. Yet that impression is not borne out by the facts..."

I am sorry that you did not follow my argument before, especially as we seem to occupy a lot of common ground. I hope this helps to clarify my position.

Littigator

In a rather long-winded manner yes!

biondino

Littigator wrote:

In a rather long-winded manner yes!

Says the lawyer!