Christina Patterson article in The Independent

the_hundredth_idiot

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christina-patterson/christina-patterson-what-are-these-memorials-to-dead-cyclists-really-trying-to-tell-us-7079711.html

How can this not have attracted any comment on this site?

Choice excerpt:

You might, for example, think that it was a great shame that the roads were so busy, and that there were so few cycle lanes, and that very big lorries were allowed to go down such narrow streets, but that if you did choose to cycle on roads that were busy, with no cycle lanes, and were hit by a very big lorry, then what happened to you wouldn't really be about your "rights". What happened to you would be about the laws of gravity.

You might want to explain that people who took big risks did sometimes get killed, and when they did, it was very, very sad for their families. But what was sad for a family didn't always have all that much to do with anyone else.

notsoblue

She keeps saying that these bikes are all rusted and have been pillaged by people nicking bits of them. But this isn't the case on any I've seen. Her two primary motives for writing the article seem to be a) to point out "eyesores" and b) to criticise people trying to improve cycling safety in cities.

She seems to think that it is inevitable that ~10 cyclists will die a year in London and nothing needs to be done about this.

bigmat

I read this and was quite angered by it. My take on her comments was "cycling is dangerous, if cyclists get killed its just an accident and ultimately their own fault for choosing to cycle". I'm sure this is an opinion shared by fu**wits up and down the land, but very disappointed to see it being published in a national newspaper.

notsoblue

She also seems to be using the same rhetoric (bafflingly) used to criticise the human rights movement to criticise "cyclists rights", as if its some kind of pejorative term. As if they're just trouble makers with an irrational agenda. Its highly offensive, and she only gets away with it because so few people cycle.

rick_chasey

She has precedent for this kind of thing:
http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/christina ... ng-bigotry

http://www.oyvagoy.com/2010/12/23/chris ... isemitism/

SmellTheGlove

Patterson is the print equivalent of a troll and a needy one at that. End of (sad) story.

rolf_f

On the other hand, replace the term 'ghost bike' with 'trashy memorial of cutesy teddybears, bunches of flowers and other miscellaneous junk' (ie the junk that becomes a memorial to people who have died on the roads in non cycling related ways) and her line becomes easier to understand.

It's controversially put but, ultimately, people get killed on the roads all the time and that is no excuse to trash the place up with more junk (whether or not it is flowers or rusty bikes). Peoples deaths are important to themselves, their families and friends - but they are of no importance to anyone else. Unless you are the sort who burst into floods of tears at Dianas death......

What matters is road safety, education etc; not mawkish memorials.

shouldbeinbed

She's doing it for the attention, we should ignore the stupid just like most of us would with any other mouthy ignorant chav yawping out of a car. I wonder if it has anything to do with the Times pro bike campaign gaining more momentum than the Indy's did last year.

I'd always taken ghost bikes as more about highlighting a dangerous spot rather than metal flowers

the_hundredth_idiot

Rolf F wrote:

On the other hand, replace the term 'ghost bike' with 'trashy memorial of cutesy teddybears, bunches of flowers and other miscellaneous junk' (ie the junk that becomes a memorial to people who have died on the roads in non cycling related ways) and her line becomes easier to understand.

It's controversially put but, ultimately, people get killed on the roads all the time and that is no excuse to trash the place up with more junk (whether or not it is flowers or rusty bikes). Peoples deaths are important to themselves, their families and friends - but they are of no importance to anyone else. Unless you are the sort who burst into floods of tears at Dianas death......

What matters is road safety, education etc; not mawkish memorials.

I can see where she's coming from with ghost bikes, although I don't personally find them offensive. I'd hope that they work as a reminder to drivers that cyclists are likely to come off quite badly if you hit them with your vehicle.

My problem with her article was more the idea that it's the cyclist's fault for having the audacity to ride on the roads than, as stats appear to show is usually the case, the driver's fault for not taking enough care around more vulnerable road users.

I wonder how she'd feel about the idea that if a woman got raped, it would be her fault for wearing a short skirt.

bigmat

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

On the other hand, replace the term 'ghost bike' with 'trashy memorial of cutesy teddybears, bunches of flowers and other miscellaneous junk' (ie the junk that becomes a memorial to people who have died on the roads in non cycling related ways) and her line becomes easier to understand.

It's controversially put but, ultimately, people get killed on the roads all the time and that is no excuse to trash the place up with more junk (whether or not it is flowers or rusty bikes). Peoples deaths are important to themselves, their families and friends - but they are of no importance to anyone else. Unless you are the sort who burst into floods of tears at Dianas death......

What matters is road safety, education etc; not mawkish memorials.

I can see where she's coming from with ghost bikes, although I don't personally find them offensive. I'd hope that they work as a reminder to drivers that cyclists are likely to come off quite badly if you hit them with your vehicle.

My problem with her article was more the idea that it's the cyclist's fault for having the audacity to ride on the roads than, as stats appear to show is usually the case, the driver's fault for not taking enough care around more vulnerable road users.

I wonder how she'd feel about the idea that if a woman got raped, it would be her fault for wearing a short skirt.

Absolutely. Personally, I have never taken offence at those little bunches of flowers and pictures of dead kids you sometimes see at the side of the road. I actually find them quite upsetting and it makes me think twice about the care I should be taking when driving. I wonder if she'd write a similar article saying that those kids were just being stupid stepping out into the road and their parents should just get on with it as nobody else is interested?

I agree that she deserves to be ignored, starve her of the oxygen of publicity. I'll be a lot less likely to buy that paper in future though.

notsoblue

Rolf F wrote:

What matters is road safety, education etc; not mawkish memorials.

Well, to be fair, I think the memorials remind people of road safety. I've seen a few ghost bikes at "dangerous" junctions and they do serve as a reminder not to be too complacent. Also, the message is that "People die here, and this isn't ok".

I was shocked to see this article was posted in the Independent.

rick_chasey

Surely the solution to the 'trashy memorials', if we think that's a bigger issue than people dying :roll:, is to stop people dying on bikes?

Won't get any ghost bikes then.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surely the solution to the 'trashy memorials', if we think that's a bigger issue than people dying :roll:, is to stop people dying on bikes?

Won't get any ghost bikes then.

Can't fight the laws of gravity, RC...

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surely the solution to the 'trashy memorials', if we think that's a bigger issue than people dying :roll:, is to stop people dying on bikes?

Won't get any ghost bikes then.

Can't fight the laws of gravity, RC...

I'll let her tell me that at the top of the Tourmalet after I've cycled up it in under 90 minutes.

rolf_f

notsoblue wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

What matters is road safety, education etc; not mawkish memorials.

Well, to be fair, I think the memorials remind people of road safety. I've seen a few ghost bikes at "dangerous" junctions and they do serve as a reminder not to be too complacent. Also, the message is that "People die here, and this isn't ok".

I think the public just see a rusty white bike unnaccountably chained to a railing.

If they were about road safety, then they'd only be seen at places where the nature of the road caused the death and they'd also be at places where people had been seriously injured but not necessarily killed.

Personally, if I got killed on my bike I'd be pretty pissed off (well not really as I'd be dead ) if someone marked my demise with a pile of badly painted scrap metal. If people must indulge in this misguided twaddle, they should at least maintain their eyesores - paint them properly, repaint as required, keep the tyres pumped up etc....

notsoblue

Rolf F wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

What matters is road safety, education etc; not mawkish memorials.

Well, to be fair, I think the memorials remind people of road safety. I've seen a few ghost bikes at "dangerous" junctions and they do serve as a reminder not to be too complacent. Also, the message is that "People die here, and this isn't ok".

I think the public just see a rusty white bike unnaccountably chained to a railing.

If they were about road safety, then they'd only be seen at places where the nature of the road caused the death and they'd also be at places where people had been seriously injured but not necessarily killed.

Personally, if I got killed on my bike I'd be pretty pissed off (well not really as I'd be dead ) if someone marked my demise with a pile of badly painted scrap metal. If people must indulge in this misguided twaddle, they should at least maintain their eyesores - paint them properly, repaint as required, keep the tyres pumped up etc....

I honestly haven't seen any bikes that were rusting heaps of junk. They all seem to be reasonably maintained.

CiB

I read the piece and tbh couldn't help but half-agree with her, and BigMat's reference to roadside memorials reminded me why; I can't do with those mawkish ugly piles of rotting flowers & cellophane tied to lamp-posts & keep left bollards. They might add a miniscule % to road safety for some people but the reality is they're a distraction at best. When I'm in charge roadside memorials will be declared illegal, full stop. As a cyclist I ought to be in favour of Ghost Bikes but deep down, I don't like em either.

Ms Patterson's arguments behind cycling deaths are a bit ropey, but when it comes to removing roadside tributes etc, I'm with her all the way.

Paulie W

Strikes me that the ghost bikes and the flowers, pictures etc tied to a lampost at the scene of a car crash have different functions. The latter are very personal and I dont think are meant as any kind of statement on road safety - they are very much a recent phenomenon in this country but have been around in other parts of Europe for years. The former do seem very much to serve as reminders that a cyclist (as opposed to some random individual) died at that spot and are a 'comment' on road safety as much as (perhaps more than) a personal memorial.