Ghost Bikes

(Demonstrating proper use of multi-quoting. ;) )

i'd rather cyclists campaigned in a more positive manner

This is exactly what needs doing--remember that if you only ever tell people the negatives about something that you do, they are going to be unlikely to take it up.

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.

Actually, ghost bikes will have more of an effect on passers-by on foot than on cyclists.

It is certainly possible to discourage individual cyclists from using specific junctions for a while, although the utility of the route that they had initially chosen is not going to go away and they will return.

However, causing cyclists to avoid certain junctions is most definitely not a good thing, as there is nothing inherently unsafe about most junctions.

What is most definitely a good thing is to encourage a cyclist who negotiates a junction that requires a certain level of skill beyond theirs, to acquire this skill level first.

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.

Unwise. It is that safety in numbers that the 'noddies' (why do you have to discriminate?) provide to you, too.

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

+1. And you can see it working in London's famous London, too. A near doubling of cycling has caused the rate of collisions to fall considerably.

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

They are of course very different cases with very different demographics. Compared to London, they're both tiny, and average trip length is incredibly short compared to London. The key factor for both is that people consider cycling an empowered majority activity, and not something that only a few strange weirdos do. Modal share of cycling in even A and C dropped post-war like in all cities, but not as far as in London, and it was higher there than here in the first place.

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.

The exact opposite is the case. Slow, steady growth is the answer, as it is sustainable (*). It has been happening in London continuously for more than ten years now. The rate of collisions keeps falling, and cycling keeps getting safer. In London, it's a bit of a perception problem, as there are already huge levels of cycling in the centre that would be much more visible in a smaller city. Overall, the modal share is still under or around 2%, but that includes Outer London.

(* Congestion charging was a good policy that did a lot for cycling and that caused the biggest exceptional increase, but it's not massively significant compared to what's happened since. Unless another exceptional policy comes along it's the boring stuff that works. Perhaps the bike hire scheme will work as well in London as in Paris, we'll see by 2010.)

It is certainly possible to discourage individual cyclists from using specific junctions for a while, although the utility of the route that they had initially chosen is not going to go away and they will return.

However, causing cyclists to avoid certain junctions is most definitely not a good thing, as there is nothing inherently unsafe about most junctions.

What is most definitely a good thing is to encourage a cyclist who negotiates a junction that requires a certain level of skill beyond theirs, to acquire this skill level first.

You are correct - I meant that it would encourage people to think more about the routes they used. Novice cyclists "jumping in at the deep end" is not necessarily that helpful.

Unwise. It is that safety in numbers that the 'noddies' (why do you have to discriminate?) provide to you, too.

+1. And you can see it working in London's famous London, too. A near doubling of cycling has caused the rate of collisions to fall considerably.

You're right, I shouldn't discriminate against the noddies, but I remain unconvinced that given the positited scenario of "more awareness of cyclist vulnerability in drivers means less cyclists will be on the road" I'd be better off with more cyclists and a lower increase in driver awareness. My experience tells me that large groups of cyclists actually cause more aggressive driver behaviour.

It could well be the case that increased driving has lowered the number of collisions, as more cars = more traffic jams = lower average speeds. I'm sure that you may be correct, but without seeing all the information (including how they are measuring the number of collisions: is it an absolute figure, per journey, per mile?) I retain some scepticism. I'm hopeful though.

They are of course very different cases with very different demographics. Compared to London, they're both tiny, and average trip length is incredibly short compared to London. The key factor for both is that people consider cycling an empowered majority activity, and not something that only a few strange weirdos do. Modal share of cycling in even A and C dropped post-war like in all cities, but not as far as in London, and it was higher there than here in the first place.

The exact opposite is the case. Slow, steady growth is the answer, as it is sustainable (*). It has been happening in London continuously for more than ten years now. The rate of collisions keeps falling, and cycling keeps getting safer. In London, it's a bit of a perception problem, as there are already huge levels of cycling in the centre that would be much more visible in a smaller city. Overall, the modal share is still under or around 2%, but that includes Outer London.

(* Congestion charging was a good policy that did a lot for cycling and that caused the biggest exceptional increase, but it's not massively significant compared to what's happened since. Unless another exceptional policy comes along it's the boring stuff that works. Perhaps the bike hire scheme will work as well in London as in Paris, we'll see by 2010.)

I think this is all part and parcel of the same thing - by making cycling acceptable, you will have already raised awareness of it. As far as I can tell, this would mean that an increased number of cyclists would indicate that cycling has become safer (because of increase public awareness) rather than the increased number of cyclists making it safer.

@tom, Harr.M, one of us, who works at the shop, has posted a detailed note on the "private" section.

@Merak, for motor bikes, it tends to be a bunch of flowers, and pictures at the nearest tree to the accident. This is a long standing tradition.

Not sure I follow your argument; we should not put up memorials, as the roads are too crowded?

Leave it to the families, I say. If it helps them come to terms with their grief, and with motor bikes, warn of what happens when we ride recklessley, then we should respect their wishes. Things that make us consider our mortality, and how the daily cares and dramas of our city lives are of little import, when faced with real tragedy, must be good for our souls.

One's popped up on Christchurch on the South Circular, junction of Brixton Hill & Streatham Hill. Just a white MTB, no plaquard or pic - just a sticker on the TT saying 'Life is.........'

that's one of greasies

Yeah I know, Joe said - no memorial on it, I believe they may be going back and placing one on it?

yeah we put them up last night there are now ten more in the London area all with the sticker on them. they are the work of greasy.

As I said in the spotted thread, saw the one in tooting this morning, basically made me well up (the male version of crying! :-) for about a mile of my commute...

here are some images from the other night really do look amazing:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Nick

Are you gonna go back and put individual memorials on them?

@ Greasy Slag, just seen the new Ghost Bike at the bottom end of Camley St. Looks great, stands out very well, good work Greasy (and others who helped).

good work chaps

@Pistan - We are,
The bikes had to be put out as they were finished and we didn't have the space to store them. The stickers were placed on to show they were Ghost bikes and the memorials will be placed on with the families

Cheers gents. Nick - Great photos man - they came out very well!

great work chaps.

Pip - You fucking rule man! Well done. I am so glad that one went up at the Bloomsbury Way crossroads, that was one of the events that sparked a lot of talk on here about HGVs and whatnot.

Guerillaphoto your photos of them are breathtaking! I think something public needs to be done with these images.

Sterling work guys...
Respect most definitely due.

+1, they need to be sent/go up on the ghost bike's sites

I got a lock that I never use, so I'm going to put it on the Southampton Road one, I'm sure that's fine, right?

Ed, I think thats a great idea.

have you seen the two by holborn? what happened that way?

Do people driving cars, vans, HGVs, etc actually take any notice of them though ?

Of course cyclists do...... we are mainly the ones who know how vunerable we are.....

I think the Pics are great...... why cant they be projected onto westminster, Marble Arch, St Pauls etc/other landmark buildings around London ??

Send the pics to Boris, asking they be projected onto buildings... in June

http://www.bikeweek.org.uk/page.php?id=31

Also, why are there so many car ads on tele and no bike ads !!!??

Amelia Zollner died in March 2007 and Wan-Chen McGuinness died in September 2008.

Spotted those last night and this morning, Southampton Row, forget where I saw the other one this morning, made me jump seeing them!!! Hope it has the same effect on Drivers.