Ghost Bikes

Why does raising awareness have to be cheap? The truth is that the government will pay for anything if they deem it to have enough electoral value. The problem with cyclists dying on the streets is that the electorate and public in general (although I'm sure they find it sad) have issues like this very far down their list of priorities.

It seems like you've answered your own (albeit rhetorical) question here. The Government haven't received enough pressure from the tabloids to do anything, so they aren't going to.

There are many ways to tap-in to the public consciousness but I think you'll probably find that the public, motorists and cyclists are all very aware that riding on the roads is dangerous, people just don't care. It's all about acceptable levels of risk.
As per the above, the responsibility for reducing cyclist vulnerability has now fallen to cyclists themselves. Cycling groups don't have the funds to mount large, effective advertising campaign, not to mention the maintenance/replacement cost of ongoing campaign materials (i.e. signs, etc).

Cyclists should leave guerilla tactics to the Viet Kong.
I am not against anti-minicab mines.

No matter how many ghost bikes there are it wont save lives, in fact it may even cause more deaths! Motorist checks out the ghost bike not looking at commuter on lhs, crashes into him, dead, how ironic!

Ah, but this is where you argument falls down somewhat. How many motorists are going to pay attention to a locked up bike if they don't know what it is? They are less obvious than a road sign, plus they don't have any text that needs reading. Weighing all this up, I'd say that the number of motorists interested by a ghost bike (for aesthetic reasons?) but who don't know what it is is probably going to be around nil.

Of that very, very small number of drivers who might be curious about the ghost bike but do not know what it is, one would imagine that they are interested in cycling, which should hopefully mean that they are more cyclist aware.

Given the above and looking at the balance of probabilities, I find it hard to see how (certainly at the moment, where ghost bikes are a relative rarity) we are better off not having them. For all the arguments about them being ineffective, they are not less effective than having none there at all.[/quote]

You do take your chances on the roa
I don't object to taking my chances on the road, it's other drivers taking them for me that I object to.

i like the sentiment and how it raises awareness........but........it hardly encourages people to get out and ride their bicycles.

there must be a better way to educate/inform motorists about how vulnerable cyclists are on the roads whilst making cycling an attractive alternative to other forms of transport.

Less people dying would be a good start I'd imagine. Once people start feeling safer on the road, I'm sure more people will cycle.

Ghost bikes will help people feel safer because the ghost bike scheme will (indirectly) highlight any failings in transport policy. Politicians don't like high profile reminders of their failings.

I wouldn't be surprised if ghost bikes led to more cycle lanes, just to avoid embarrassment in Whitehall.