Ghost Bikes

The point is that cyclists are disproportionately vulnerable.

Pedestrians have pavements, on which there are no vehicles. Where there are no pavements (i.e. in the country), a fatility involving a pedestrian would have fairly high profile and changes would almost certainly be made.

Car drivers have metal boxes round them and they are the people that are injuring each other. There isn't another demographic endangering them.

Motorbikes are a slightly better example though. Personally, I think that the fact that they have an engine (which in turns means that they can get out of dangerous situations more easily, as well as not being exposed to the risks of impatient drivers trying to over take them, etc) makes them less vulnerable than cyclists to injury by another form of transport.

To me, ghost bikes play an important role in highlighting the fact that cyclists are vulnerable and that their needs need to be addressed in future transport planning. They also serve to remind other road users that a "shunt" between a car driver and a cyclist could have grave repercussions, let alone a higher speed collision.

Ghost bikes are in no worse taste than any other memorial. A war memorial is arguably in far worst taste as having it isn't going to cause a direct change in attitude among people that see it; no lives will be saved because people see a war memorial in the morning. Who ever got sleepy after a heavy lunch and as a result started a war?

My sincere condolences go to any one who has lost a loved one who was riding their bike.

I find the ghost bike thing to be in bad taste. Even the term ghost bike I find inappropriate. If memorials were left everywhere for folk that die there would me no room to move. What about runners, car drivers, motorcyclists that are killed through no fault of their own? Its trite in my opinion.

+1

There are far better ways to reach people and raise awareness. I wouldn't want one put up for me if I died on my bike.

The highway code has more in it about horses than it does about bicycles. The use of bicycles must outweigh the use of horses by 10,000 / 1. This is the sort of thing that needs re-dressing.

+1

There are far better ways to reach people and raise awareness. I wouldn't want one put up for me if I died on my bike.

The highway code has more in it about horses than it does about bicycles. The use of bicycles must outweigh the use of horses by 10,000 / 1. This is the sort of thing that needs re-dressing.

Just out of interest, what ways of raising awareness where you thinking of, Given that they should maintain a raised awareness and be free (or at least very cheap)?

Ghost bikes are a guerilla way for cyclists to do what the government should have been doing for the last 20 years.

Ghost bikes are in no worse taste than any other memorial. A war memorial is arguably in far worst taste as having it isn't going to cause a direct change in attitude among people that see it; no lives will be saved because people see a war memorial in the morning. Who ever got sleepy after a heavy lunch and as a result started a war?

Tom, that is a dreadful analogy to use.

In WW 2 people fought and died for the freedoms you and I enjoy today, sounds cheesy but its true, respect fail.

A granite plinth to commemorate the loss of hundreds of lives who died for a just cause is a worthy memorial imo.

And lets be realistic a shitty bike painted all white isn't going to save any ones life is it?

The point is in my opinion its a tactless and fruitless exercise which is trite and corny if I buy it on the road on my bike or otherwise I don't want such a gauche memorial or any at all for that matter.

You take your chances on the road. If you don't like it get the bus.

Merak, I think you're missing the point

When I saw a ghost bike for the first time in NY few years back it was my curiosity that made me go up and inspect, to see what it was all about. When I read the plackard and understood it's purpose it really made me stop and think about what happened. I looked around, looked at the road, traffic etc and really tried to understand how the guy could've been killed in such a drastic, needless way
It's purpose is to just raise awareness, make people realise that cars aren't the only people on the road and hopefully drivers can see the bikes and acknowledge the fact

Merak, I think you're missing the point

When I saw a ghost bike for the first time in NY few years back it was my curiosity that made me go up and inspect, to see what it was all about. When I read the plackard and understood it's purpose it really made me stop and think about what happened. I looked around, looked at the road, traffic etc and really tried to understand how the guy could've been killed in such a drastic, needless way
It's purpose is to just raise awareness, make people realise that cars aren't the only people on the road and hopefully drivers can see the bikes and acknowledge the fact

With respect, no I'm not missing the point. I totally understand. I just think its a dreadfully trite memorial to dead folk, that's all.

It's awareness, nothing more, nothing less. A memorial of any kind is up to the family of the deceased, if it makes them grieve easier then who are we to decide what is 'trite' or not, don't read into it too much

Actually, the war memorial analogy is quite reasonable.

The vast majority of people who get killed in active service made an informed decision to join the fight, an activity which will result in one side dying. I don't cycle with the intention that anyone should die, as I would imagine is the case with most cyclists, so if anything ghost bikes are less trite than war memorials.

Also, I appreciate the efforts made by the people that served in both World Wars, but they are not the only wars that these memorials commenorate. The fact that you only mention WW2 is interesting, as I didn't. I've seen memorials (mainly in churches) for campaigns which were little more than displays of might during the period of the British Empire.

And ghost bikes will, if they become more common place, save lives. They remind cyclists of their vulnerability, which may stop some gumby from trying to undertake a lorry, which is a life saved. They also remind motorists that cylists use the road too, which might make someone check their blind spot better, which is another life saved.

I resent the suggestion that cyclists should have to "take their chances". Also, I dispute the suggestion that a ghost bike it a memorial; they are no more memorials to dead cyclists than lighthouses are to dead sailors. If people wish to remember their friends at the same time, sobeit, but I think that regardless of any cyclists' wishes regarding memorials, the dangers to cyclists should be made visiable in some way and I think that ghost bikes are an elegant solution.

My sincere condolences go to any one who has lost a loved one who was riding their bike.

I find the ghost bike thing to be in bad taste. Even the term ghost bike I find inappropriate. If memorials were left everywhere for folk that die there would me no room to move. What about runners, car drivers, motorcyclists that are killed through no fault of their own? Its trite in my opinion.

Well, this is a debate that's been going on a while with considered, sincere and passionate views on all sides.
Ghost bikes are not put up without the consent/involvement of the family so if they felt it was bad taste they wouldn't go along with it I guess.
As for other 'accident' victims I suppose it is up to their families and other advocates to organise; perhaps if, as you suggest, every avoidable road death was memorialised and there was "no room to move" then the truly sickening scale of the problem would be visible and, who knows, maybe this would help to bring about the changes that are needed?

Just out of interest, what ways of raising awareness where you thinking of, Given that they should maintain a raised awareness and be free (or at least very cheap)?

Ghost bikes are a guerilla way for cyclists to do what the government should have been doing for the last 20 years.

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.

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.

Cyclists should leave guerilla tactics to the Viet Kong.

None of the above is supposed to sound harsh. It's just reality.

Actually, the war memorial analogy is quite reasonable.

The vast majority of people who get killed in active service made an informed decision to join the fight, an activity which will result in one side dying. I don't cycle with the intention that anyone should die, as I would imagine is the case with most cyclists, so if anything ghost bikes are less trite than war memorials.

Also, I appreciate the efforts made by the people that served in both World Wars, but they are not the only wars that these memorials commenorate. The fact that you only mention WW2 is interesting, as I didn't. I've seen memorials (mainly in churches) for campaigns which were little more than displays of might during the period of the British Empire.

And ghost bikes will, if they become more common place, save lives. They remind cyclists of their vulnerability, which may stop some gumby from trying to undertake a lorry, which is a life saved. They also remind motorists that cylists use the road too, which might make someone check their blind spot better, which is another life saved.

I resent the suggestion that cyclists should have to "take their chances". Also, I dispute the suggestion that a ghost bike it a memorial; they are no more memorials to dead cyclists than lighthouses are to dead sailors. If people wish to remember their friends at the same time, sobeit, but I think that regardless of any cyclists' wishes regarding memorials, the dangers to cyclists should be made visiable in some way and I think that ghost bikes are an elegant solution.

Tom,

Your argument is valid and I don't have any beef with you at all. Im not acting the cunt here. I do however think you are being naive.

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!

You do take your chances on the road.

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.

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.

Nice use of the multi quoting function

Multi-quote? Nah, wrote a long reply, previewed it, realised something else had been added, copied pasted the quote code, etc.

That's what only the first post has the little arrow by it ;)

Nice use of the multi quoting function

Indeed, kudos was going to reply but cannae be bothered. Ghost bikes are shit, Im out.:)

Nice use of the multi quoting function

They call it the Tynan-Schick method.

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.

at the moment all they do is make people aware of how *dangerous *cycling is. they don't make people want to cycle - they make it appear risky and frightening. they are a direct reminder of death.

highlighting the positives would encourage more motorists to leave their cars behind.

i'd rather cyclists campaigned in a more positive manner especially with regards to prosecutions and sentences for dangerous drivers rather than

Firstly, given the current levels of ghost bikes, I think that ghost bikes would cause cyclists to avoid specific junctions rather than entirely discourage them. This is a good thing.

Secondly, at some point people need to reminded of the vulnerability of cyclists. How do you intend reminding motorists that cyclists are vulnerable without reminding the cyclists themselves?

And thirdly (and most importantly) I don't give a shit whether they encourage cycling or not - that is not their purpose. They exist to remind all road users that cylists are squishy. If the upshot of not having minicabs trying to kill me every time I get on a bike is that there are a few less noddys in flourescent vests, I'll quite happily accept that.

we* need* more cyclists. that's how the critical mass theory works - you can see it working in cities like copenhagen and amsterdam.

puting people off cycling to make a point surely isn't the answer.

thankfully, most people don't know what they are.

But did Copenhagen and/or Amsterdam ever have the same attitudes towards car use as London?

I can't see that critical mass is going to work unless the jump can be sudden. At the moment, we are so far off the point in which road use tips towards cyclists that more cyclists will just equal more fatalities.

Ghost bikes seem like a good way to improve the way in which cyclists are treated on the road (in terms of being given space, not being cut up, etc). I think that cyclists will - in general - be more put off by being badly cut up by drivers (which happens to me almost everytime I get on my bike) than they would be by a few ghost bikes at busy junctions.

They call it the Tynan-Schick method.

'Shtick'

bloody illiterate curryers.

did some scum nick the wheels off a ghostbike on or near kingsland road not so long ago? was drunk but remember seeing that somewhere near where i live.
the painted bikes on the road though with names underneath were more thought provoking i reckon.

'Shtick'

Platini! Help!