Vigils and Die-Ins.

I think they're a fucking nonsense and don't get me started on ghost bikes.

I've been to many beautiful and moving vigils over the years. They give people a chance to share their grief, however remotely felt (and our capacity for empathy certainly extends even to people whom we didn't know). I think the first one I went to must have been in 1996, for the beautifully-named Oona Cloud, who was killed outside the (as was) London College of Printing at the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout.

However, the vigil also provided an object lesson in other ways. Vigils largely used to happen through Critical Mass. The mass that evening was very large (by the standards of those days) and, in gathering around the guard railing outside the college, blocked the roundabout completely. Many people who were there were rejoicing at this, saying that they couldn't believe it and how great it was that there were enough people to do it. It was interesting how some saw it as connected to Oona's death--getting some form of 'revenge' for her, a way of asserting the presence of cyclists, of being joyous that for a brief moment only, they were the dominant force. The Elephant and Castle, of course, is still iconic in London of motor traffic dominance, and it was even more so in those days.

The idea behind Critical Mass itself is different--as an 'organised coincidence' generating a large volume of cycle traffic in one place, but despite its necessary slow speed, not setting out to 'block' anything. The boundaries between those ideas are obviously rather permeable, but they revolve around the battle of ideas as to whether 'traffic' is a good thing or a bad. It is a good thing because it is people moving about, doing things, getting out of the house, and it is a bad thing because too much need to travel (especially mundane) can really uproot people and waste time they could spend with their families and friends, and that's before we even get to the role that the motorisation of people-carriages plays in all this and the negative consequences associated with it.

But back to the vigil--I've never forgotten what happened next. The police, who accompanied Masses in those days, were mainly there to chivvy it along and had not yet developed any protocol to facilitate such events for the (usually) brief time that they took, but they were powerless to clear the carriageway and I would assume had already radioed for back-up when word got round that an ambulance was trying to get through.

Needless to say, nobody wanted to block an ambulance and the vigil swiftly dissolved in this way--as lots of cars other than the ambulance started streaming through again, too, the ceremonial atmosphere was over very abruptly and immediately. Oona's family and friends were there and one of her friends had just spoken very passionately and beautifully, and (I think) was about to hand over to her sister, but was then disrupted by the events. I still remember the feeling of not being able to 'complete' the vigil to this day. I do think that these events are emotionally important.

At the same time, I think that the idea of 'die-ins' is a perversion of the simple idea of sharing grief in solidarity. I don't see any sense in demonstrating 'solidarity' by pretending to 'die' in solidarity (an idea that makes absolutely no sense) and I would never attend such an event.

The other important caveat is that there are plenty of other victims of road danger who may not have happened to ride a bicycle when they were killed. In London, it is very notable that we don't hear much about vigils for pedestrians who are killed, who include quite a few vulnerable and mobility-restricted people. Some may even have been in cars at the time of their deaths. Should we not mourn them? And if not, why then mourn people killed while riding bikes?

A concentration on just one mode of transport may be seen as legitimate because the victims using that mode are the ones with whom we feel the greatest solidarity, and we could probably not mourn everybody who gets killed--there are still far too many victims in London alone to do this. However, there's always a problem with making it too mode-specific, as it can reinforce a feeling of 'us vs. them', and that is, essentially, one of the main things that we need to diminish connected with our use of different modes of transportation.

These 'die in' folk wait in the wings waiting for another tragic death like the bloody Spanish Inquisition.

I notice that too, it's part of the Stop Killing Cyclist movement, don't think they ask permission at all.

All it does is keeping up the perception that cycling is dangerous, and nothing have been done to address driver's behaviour.

+1 to the general sentiment in this thread.
(Vigil = OK. Die-in = Weird)

This.

Plus they don't achieve anything, well nothing that helps improve the safety of cyclists.

Donucunt Macunty has organised a die in to exploit the recent death of a cyclist near Victoria. He, of course, does not have the endorsement of the victims family.

does not have the endorsement of the victims family.

Big surprise.

I hope they all get piles from laying on cold ground.

Interesting to see how little press last nights die-in has achieved. Has the novelty worn off...

Less than one hour after the tragedy this morning and they had already created an event to exploit it.

https://www.facebook.com/events/456266237863486/

.

Says it all, really

1 Attachment

Don now saying we need to rid roundabout;

McCarthy said: "What is actually needed is the total abolition of the roundabout, replacement with a traditional traffic light junction and the installation of protected left hand turns on each corner to ensure safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

Nothing about the driver, or the fact those truck exist in the first place.

My jaw is on the floor reading that. The hubris is breathtaking.

The owner of that event has a Hillsborough cover photo so I suspect from this that there's a bit of a semi-pro ghoulism involved.

Would they respect the wishes of the family should they oppose such a demonstration...?

i pulled donablarghrghgh mcfucksnack up on his ghoulish die-ins on the twatters a while back. got a tirade of 'how many dead cyclists does will it take before you CARE AS MUCH AS I DO' horseshit + a block for my troubles.

i've also decided to not vote green on account of jenny jones, someone who i normally have loads of time for, deciding to retweet this buffoons' self-agrandising witterings.

if i ever i kark it on the roads and this shit-stain tries to hitch his wankwagon to my death, you all have my express permission to punch him square in his fatuous fucking cock, you know - to raise awareness.

Noted ;)

.

.

sorry, that's far too '#vibrant'.

I'm tempted to run you over, just to have an excuse to cockpunch the man.

I have a lot of sympathy for the variety of views on here. I have big reservations about die-ins and it would seem to me to be common courtesy, at the very least, to consult properly with family members of the deceased and take some significant account of their wishes.

What does surprise me though is how someone can attract quite so much hatred for simply exercising his rights to peacefully protest about anything he wishes any way that he wishes, especially when the cause is one that everyone on here agrees with. Surely the issues are dangerous roads and trucks and drivers - someone organising die-ins might be a bit distasteful or not your thing but a distasteful protest is of next to zero importance when compared to the actual issue - safety.

The point amongst others here, is that this is not a peaceful protest. It's main aim is to cause as much disruption to other road users to get their point across. This of course only adds further fuel to the general feeling of resentment towards cyclists.....

The individual concerned tends to use these deaths for his own agenda. Often he is more interested in arguing with other cycling campaigners than addressing the issues to a wider audience. And when he does venture into the public realm he tends to aggravate and antagonise rather than win friends.

Having him do these high profile campaigns to promote his own ego and agenda, exploiting these grim occurences does not sit well with many of us. Hence why his cycle campaigning is not widely supported by this cycling community.

It is a peaceful protest. Disruption is not violence.

If you believe that the protest is counter-productive then obviously you have a right to campaign against it, and another reason to dislike the organisers, but I stand by my point. I share your reservations but I struggle to see how peaceful protest can attract so much ire when the cause is such a good one.

I dislike the gneral tone of this thread which seems to me to be suggesting that this guy is wrong to eercse his right to peacefully protest and encourage others to do the same. He might be an arsehole. He should probably get full consent from the families or wait two weeks and then protest the site not naming the victim. But he still has a right to peacefully protest which is absolute - certainly greater than other people's rights to tell him where and when and how to peacefully protest.