View Full Version : Ghost Cycles
umpadumpy
08-02-05, 09:01 AM
Great article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002415555_ghostcycle02m.html) in the Seattle Times this morning about "Ghost Cycle (http://www.ghostcycle.org/)," an organization that marks where cyclists have been hit by motorists.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002415555_ghostcycle02m.html
Yeah, they got em around here too. Only seen one like it so far..
The other day I was looking for a spot to lock up. Bikes were locked to every free piece of real estate except one, but when I got there I realized "F*ck that, it's a ghost bike, I ain't parkin next to that"
superstitions are an odd little thing, eh?
KingTermite
08-02-05, 09:12 AM
Interesting article......we need more groups like that around the country.
ngateguy
08-02-05, 11:09 AM
They just popped up here this weekend I ride by 4 of them on the way to work. Ones out in front of our building. This is already a nationwide program I believe it started in the Midwest (Like St Louis).
Good idea... at least they serve as warnings to other cyclists that that spot is a danger zone. 'Course around here we also see small alters at roadsides where drivers have been killed. A bit of a tradition from our southern neighbors.
A very gentle, sincere and non-confrontational way to make a point. I appreciate their effort.
Helmet Head
08-02-05, 12:34 PM
A very gentle, sincere and non-confrontational way to make a point.
Yes, but what is the point, and is it good for cycling advocacy to make that point?
The problem with ghost cycles is that they are predicated on the idea that motorists need to be more aware of cyclists so that we have fewer car-bike collisions and fatalities. Why is that a problem for cycling advocacy? Because it makes bicycling seem much more dangerous than it really is. In particular, it makes it seem like the onus for making cycling in traffic safe falls on the motorists, and, thus, out of control of the cyclists. That makes it seem like cyclists are sitting ducks out there. Is that good for cycling advocacy? You tell me. How enticing to you is the concept of being a sitting duck to a 4,000 lbs vehicle?
I think we need to stop complaining about motorists. We need to stop trying to change motorists. We need to stop seeing motorists and cars as our problem, and start looking at our behavior as cyclists as the problem (because it is). That puts the onus, and the power, on us to solve our problem, not on a group of people (motorists) over which we have hardly any influence, much less control.
I too appreciate the effort of ghost cycles, bike lanes, blue lanes, etc. etc., but I think they are misguided efforts, and end up hurting cycling advocacy more than they help it.
Dahon.Steve
08-02-05, 01:53 PM
A very gentle, sincere and non-confrontational way to make a point. I appreciate their effort.
There was an article yesterday that stated 750 cyclists were killed last year, an increase of 15%! At the same time, the number of drunk drivers killed declined. Go figure.
Yes, but what is the point, and is it good for cycling advocacy to make that point?
The problem with ghost cycles is that they are predicated on the idea that motorists need to be more aware of cyclists so that we have fewer car-bike collisions and fatalities. Why is that a problem for cycling advocacy? Because it makes bicycling seem much more dangerous than it really is. In particular, it makes it seem like the onus for making cycling in traffic safe falls on the motorists, and, thus, out of control of the cyclists. That makes it seem like cyclists are sitting ducks out there. Is that good for cycling advocacy? You tell me. How enticing to you is the concept of being a sitting duck to a 4,000 lbs vehicle?
I think we need to stop complaining about motorists. We need to stop trying to change motorists. We need to stop seeing motorists and cars as our problem, and start looking at our behavior as cyclists as the problem (because it is). That puts the onus, and the power, on us to solve our problem, not on a group of people (motorists) over which we have hardly any influence, much less control.
I too appreciate the effort of ghost cycles, bike lanes, blue lanes, etc. etc., but I think they are misguided efforts, and end up hurting cycling advocacy more than they help it.
Some interesting points. My only real disagreement is that motorists are not behaving in a responsible manner... they cut off their own, speed, and many have a tendency to act as if they do own the road. Now that said, you are right in that it is doubtful that any of them can be changed...
Now that also said, it puts cycling advocacy in something of a defensive position... it assumes that critical mass is doing nothing for cycling. It assumes that even the laws that govern cyclists rights to the road are bogus as the drivers will do as they see fit, none the less. That latter statement puts cycling in danger.
You are right in that the ghost bikes do not put a positive light on cycling... but then neither do the roadside alters so often seen in our area.
This is where I have a personal conflict, I think the bikes memoralize the cyclist... but do nothing for cycling.
brokenrobot
08-02-05, 02:10 PM
HH-
You've long since crossed the line dividing "thoughtful alternate point of view" from "deranged, maniacal one-note harpy".
Encouraging motorists to be vigilant HURTS cycling advocacy?! Whatever!
-chris
Yes, but what is the point, and is it good for cycling advocacy to make that point?
The problem with ghost cycles is that they are predicated on the idea that motorists need to be more aware of cyclists so that we have fewer car-bike collisions and fatalities. Why is that a problem for cycling advocacy? Because it makes bicycling seem much more dangerous than it really is. In particular, it makes it seem like the onus for making cycling in traffic safe falls on the motorists, and, thus, out of control of the cyclists. That makes it seem like cyclists are sitting ducks out there. Is that good for cycling advocacy? You tell me. How enticing to you is the concept of being a sitting duck to a 4,000 lbs vehicle?
I think we need to stop complaining about motorists. We need to stop trying to change motorists. We need to stop seeing motorists and cars as our problem, and start looking at our behavior as cyclists as the problem (because it is). That puts the onus, and the power, on us to solve our problem, not on a group of people (motorists) over which we have hardly any influence, much less control.
I too appreciate the effort of ghost cycles, bike lanes, blue lanes, etc. etc., but I think they are misguided efforts, and end up hurting cycling advocacy more than they help it.
This is without a doubt the single most misguided and wrongheaded thing I've read on this section of the forum.
Helmet Head
08-02-05, 03:24 PM
Encouraging motorists to be vigilant HURTS cycling advocacy?! Whatever!
I never wrote, said, implied or thought that encouraging motorists to be vigilant HURTS cycling advocacy.
I realize the intended purpose of ghost cycles is to encourage motorists to be vigilant. A valiant effort, however, does not necessarily make a valiant deed. We all know what the road to hell is paved with...
To brokenrobot, Laika, and anyone else who was not pleased with my earlier post, I have two questions.
How effective do you think ghost cycles are, or even could be, in actually making motorists more vigilant with respect to remembering to look for cyclists? Honestly.
How effective do you think ghost cycles are in conveying the message to potential cyclists that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous, and cyclists are sitting ducks out there, vulnerable to any motorist who falters even perhaps only momentarily from being vigilant?
The same two questions could apply to bike lanes and blue bike lanes, to anyone wishing to address them thusly.
I never wrote, said, implied or thought that encouraging motorists to be vigilant HURTS cycling advocacy.
I realize the intended purpose of ghost cycles is to encourage motorists to be vigilant. A valiant effort, however, does not necessarily make a valiant deed. We all know what the road to hell is paved with...
To brokenrobot, Laika, and anyone else who was not pleased with my earlier post, I have two questions.
How effective do you think ghost cycles are, or even could be, in actually making motorists more vigilant with respect to remembering to look for cyclists? Honestly.
How effective do you think ghost cycles are in conveying the message to potential cyclists that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous, and cyclists are sitting ducks out there, vulnerable to any motorist who falters even perhaps only momentarily from being vigilant?
The same two questions could apply to bike lanes and blue bike lanes, to anyone wishing to address them thusly.
Keep the bike lane and blue lane posts on the bike lane thread... don't do them here. This thread is about Ghost Bikes. Leave it that way.
Here's my take on this anyway. Hope no one takes offence from this...oh well.
How effective do you think ghost cycles are, or even could be, in actually making motorists more vigilant with respect to remembering to look for cyclists? Honestly.
cars & trucks hardly pay attention to the living on bikes, so...
How effective do you think ghost cycles are in conveying the message to potential cyclists that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous, and cyclists are sitting ducks out there, vulnerable to any motorist who falters even perhaps only momentarily from being vigilant?
Ghost bike creeps me the f*ck out for a second, then I just feel sad.
Kinda like seeing flowers on the roadside for KIA's. Always give 'em a salute and move on.
I know it's nasty out there. I don't need to be reminded how bad it is.
It's all about the memory of another fallen to me, not "ride safe or else...."
slagjumper
08-02-05, 07:11 PM
The ghost bikes that I have seen in Pittsburgh lack the signage which really helps drive on the point. Has anybody ever see a ghost bike on a local broadcast news story?
Helmet Head
08-02-05, 07:24 PM
A very gentle, sincere and non-confrontational way to make a point.
The ghost bikes that I have seen in Pittsburgh lack the signage which really helps drive on the point.
I'll try one more time. What is the point of ghost bikes?
If the point is "motorists should be more aware of cyclists on the road", to what extent do you believe motorists not being sufficiently aware of cyclists on the road is a significant factor in car-bike collisions and fatalities?
In particular, how significant is that factor, compared to the factor of cyclist behavior in traffic?
If the motorist awareness factor (excepting drunk drivers which is a separate case) is relatively insignificant compared to the cyclist behavior factor, tell me again... what is the point of ghost cycles?
I never wrote, said, implied or thought that encouraging motorists to be vigilant HURTS cycling advocacy.
And I never wrote what you quoted above.
I realize the intended purpose of ghost cycles is to encourage motorists to be vigilant. A valiant effort, however, does not necessarily make a valiant deed. We all know what the road to hell is paved with...
...it's paved with completly inflexible dogma, actually.
You're wrong about this being the intended purpose of ghost bikes. As long as you insist on seeing everything that has to do with two wheels and pedals from your self-imposed VC ghetto, you'll be wrong about lots of things.
In New York City, the ghost bikes function primarily as memorials. You can tell their intended targets are not motorists because they're often somewhat out of the way and have these itty-bitty little signs on them that no one in a car could possibly hope to see.
In as far as a secondary purpose is behavior modification, they function as reminders to both cyclists and motorists.
To brokenrobot, Laika, and anyone else who was not pleased with my earlier post, I have two questions.
How effective do you think ghost cycles are, or even could be, in actually making motorists more vigilant with respect to remembering to look for cyclists? Honestly.
You miss the point completely.
How effective do you think ghost cycles are in conveying the message to potential cyclists that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous, and cyclists are sitting ducks out there, vulnerable to any motorist who falters even perhaps only momentarily from being vigilant?
This sort of Manichean worldview is inherently self limiting. Why is it impossible for you to see them as reminders of an acceptable degree of risk which all cyclists face, as does anyone who wakes up and leaves the house in the morning? Because that wouldn't fit into your dualistic, VC/non-VC way of looking at the world, that's why.
The same two questions could apply to bike lanes and blue bike lanes, to anyone wishing to address them thusly.
Excepting that bike lanes and ghost bikes are completly different things, this isn't untrue.
I let this: I think we need to stop complaining about motorists. We need to stop trying to change motorists. We need to stop seeing motorists and cars as our problem, and start looking at our behavior as cyclists as the problem (because it is). That puts the onus, and the power, on us to solve our problem, not on a group of people (motorists) over which we have hardly any influence, much less control.
go before, but honestly, this is a step away from some bizzaro self-hating blame-the-victim nonsense.
Harmful motorist behaviors can, have (e.g.; seatbelt use, drunk-driving) and should be modified. I'm not saying the onus for safe cycling falls completely on motorists, but it's simply ridiculous to think that there are not harmful motorist behaviors which, if modified or eliminated, would make the roads safer for all road users, cyclists included. VC shares a lot of the same intellectual and practical shortcomings as any other abstracted theory which assumes that human behavior is predictable and rational, and as has been explained to you time and time again by people who ride in the cities and situations like those faced by Jerome Allen, Brandie Bailey, Andrew Morgan, Elizabeth Padilla and countless other cyclists, the theory of VC often breaks down when the rubber meets the road.
Finally, you want to talk about the relative effectivness of different forms of cycling activism? Fine. How effective is a form of cycling activism which seeks to place all blame for dangerous conditions on cyclists who fall victim to them, which completely fails to recognize the inherently chaotic nature of urban cycling, which places dogma before reality and which is pushed in a most unappealing, overzealous and very nearly misanthopic fashion on its intended audience? Honestly. Cyclists get killed, someone expresses their grief by coming up with and executing a really evocative and chilling memorial, and these are your reactions?
Helmet Head
08-02-05, 08:15 PM
Laika,
Sorry about the misquote. Whoever originally posted it must have deleted it. I don't see it any more, I know I didn't make it up, and can't remember who posted it.
I'm referring to the Seattle ghost cycles and ghost cycle movement written about in the article and website cited in the OP of this thread. You're talking about NY ghost bikes, which I admit to knowing nothing about. The article and website are full of quotes and statements that substantiate my interpretation of their purpose. Let me know if I need to point them out.
VC "dogma", if you insist, does not fail to recognize "the inherently chaotic nature of urban cycling". However, VC is about learning to minimize the risk incurred by the cyclist due to "the inherently chaotic nature of urban cycling" to an acceptable level.
What you see as a "form of cycling activism which seeks to place all blame for dangerous conditions on cyclists who fall victim to them", I see as as a form of activism that seeks to advance the cyclist empowering notion that the risks facing the urban cyclist can be mitigated to an acceptable low risk through the cyclist's behavior alone. Why do you have to be so negative about it? ;-)
"which is pushed in a most unappealing, overzealous and very nearly misanthopic fashion on its intended audience?" Sorry, I'm an engineer, not an advertisement designer or PR specialist. Here, let me try some marketing.
:beer:
That's as good as it gets from me, I'm afraid.
"but it's simply ridiculous to think that there are not harmful motorist behaviors which, if modified or eliminated, would make the roads safer for all road users, cyclists included." Agreed. I hope you're not implying I think that...
I'm just saying the roads are already sufficiently safe to make urban cycling an activity with an acceptable low risk without having to modify or eliminate those behavior. Would cycling be even safer if they were modified or eliminated? Of course. But the emphasis in "cycling advocacy" on the supposed dangers caused by motorist behavior - with the implication that the urban cyclist is a helpless and powerless sitting duck when faced with the dangerous behavior - makes it seem like the risk is much higher than it really is, and unacceptable, which it doesn't have to be, depending on the cyclist's behavior.
As to whether the theory of VC "often breaks down when the rubber meets the road", I looked at the incidents associated with the first 10 ghost cycles on the ghostcycle.org website. Here's my take on them, for what it's worth. Again, my point isn't to blame the cyclist, but to point out that had the cyclist who was involved employed the defensive driving VC techniques that I advocate, in each of the 10 incidents they probably could have been avoided.
going straight from too far right (left hooked)
entered intersection assuming cross traffic will stop at stop sign (swerved/crashed to avoid being hit)
approached side street intersection without making sure seen by driver of exiting/turning car (swerved/crashed to avoid being hit)
riding too far to the right. (had to hop onto curb to avoid being hit)
going too fast down hill (rear-ended car that stopped suddenly in front of him)
riding too far right for current conditions (no other traffic in his direction, going fast from momentum of downhill) (left hooked by oncoming car turning into driveway)
undue care taken at intersection of bike path with roadway (hit by driver who ignored bike path traffic)
through cyclist riding in bike lane (right hooked)
improper lighting (did not see road defects that caused crash)
riding in front of or next to right-on-red motorist; expecting right-on-red motorist to look for something other than vehicular traffic to his left (hit by right-on-red motorist who "wasn't looking")
All ten of the incidents noted appear to be classic, very predictable, and very easy to avoid types of car-bike collisions and close calls. They are easy to avoid by the cyclist, over which each cyclist has total control. Yet all the emphasis is on whining and hand wringing about the behavior of the motorists, over which we have negligible influence, much less control. Why? When is cycling advocacy going to stop banging its head against the wall? What's the point?
sbhikes
08-02-05, 09:33 PM
I've never seen a Ghost Bike. I've seen multitudes of highway shrines to people who were killed. Many of them are still up after many years. It is sad to see them. I think my first thought is "drunk driver."
That's what I think Ghost Bike does for cycling advocacy. If all the highway shrines are assumed to be accidents caused by drunk drivers, the Ghost Bike will make you instead stop and wonder what happened.
If nothing else, you can see that it's not just other people in cars who are killed by bad drivers, but cyclists too. And not only that, but a cyclist who was known and cared about and is now missed. Too many drivers think cyclists deserve it if they get hit by a car. The Ghost Bike says otherwise.
What you see as a "form of cycling activism which seeks to place all blame for dangerous conditions on cyclists who fall victim to them", I see as as a form of activism that seeks to advance the cyclist empowering notion that the risks facing the urban cyclist can be mitigated to an acceptable low risk through the cyclist's behavior alone.
This is anecdotal, to be sure, but here is an example of how this is wrong:
Early last month, I was on a grocery run.
The grocery store is about three blocks from my house.
To return from the grocery store to my house, I need to make a right out of the parking lot and proceed 1 block southbound on a 4 lane avenue, make a left, proceed 1 block eastbound, make a right and proceed one block southbound.
I leave the parking lot, making a right into the right lane. I take the entire lane, as motor vehicle traffic in the area is such that it is safer to assert posession of the full lane. About twenty yards before my left turn, I signal and merge left. The traffic signal ahead is red, so I come to a stop behind a car already waiting at the signal. As I check over my shoulder, I see a black sedan pulling up behind me. The black sedan is 40 yards behind me when I merge left. No sooner does the driver pull in directly behind me than I hear the horn. The driver just lays on the horn, regardless of the fact that the light is red and I'm not even the first vehicle in line. The light changes, the car in front proceeds straight, I pull into the intersection slightly and wait for a break in traffic to make my left, which I'm signaling. Still with the horn. Traffic clears, I make my turn, the black sedan pulls around me to the right, making its left in a hook around my right side, which forces the driver into the parking lane, where its progress is blocked by a parked car. Because is progress is impeded by the parked car, I'm now ahead of the black sedan again (as usual, bike is making faster progress through crowded street than car. but I digress.) Approaching my right turn, I signal my intentions and look over my shoulder. the black sedan is close but not too close. As I approach the corner, the two parking spots nearest the intersection are free. As I make my right, the black sedan darts into the parking lane and attempts to pass me on the right, while I'm making a right turn. She clips my handlebar w/her mirror, skids to a halt, I slap her hood, angry words are exchanged and she calls the police because she believes I was illegally impeding her progress and have nearly cause damage to her car.
I took the lanes, I was as clear as possible about my intentions, I was extremely visible and, eventually, vocal about my intentions, and yet, this is a situation where doing everything right was absolutely wrong. In the end, it would have been far safer for me to have made my left with pedestrian traffic through the crosswalk, waited on the green to cross to the far side of the avenue and then completed my turn out of the crosswalk.
Another example, as long as we're here. There are two straightline routes to Coney Island from where I live...Ocean Parkway and Coney Island Avenue. CIA is a four lane avenue with no bicycle accomodations at all. There is frequent double-parking, a lot of commercial districts, many auto-body shops and car washes with cars half parked in lanes and a lot of unpredictable illegal pedestrian cross traffic. Ocean Parkway is a six-lane highway (more or less, although it's a painted median, not a divider) with left-turn facilities, northbound and southbound service roads and a pedestrian only path on the east side of the road, and a divided MUP on the west (an iron rail divides pedestrian and cycle portions of the lane and the division is respected, mostly.) Traffic on Ocean Parkway habitually exceeds 50mph, though the posted limit is 30... since the lights are timed to allow nearly delay free access over the five miles from the end of the Prospect Expressway to the Belt Parkway, drivers moving from one highway to another tend to use the Parkway as an extended high-speed exit ramp.
So, if I were a pure of heart VC advocate, I'd pedal my butt over to Coney Island Avenue and subject myself to the vagaries of random, chaotic and (as above) sometimes hostile motorists, because CIA provides the sanest opportunity to ride as a vehicle, in lanes shared with other vehicles, even though CIA is a sort of worst-case scenario of multi-lane, mixed use roadways. Or, I could be a martyr to the cause of taking my lane on Ocean Parkway, and, sticking to the right lane, but taking it fully, impose myself on traffic which is moving, to be sure illegally, at far greater speeds than I'm capable of maintaining. I could use the single lane service road, which would mean entering perpendicular intersections just as often as I would while using the bike path, with the added complication of having to share the single lane with traffic that's eager to pass me and either join the main road illegally, make turns to local streets or pull over and park. Or, I could segregate myself in the bike lane, MUP ghetto, keeping a sharp eye out for wayward pedestrians and minding that I watch my progress through intersections where the MUP crosses the path of cars looking to make turns from the main portion of the Parkway. Now, I ride this route all the time, and I promise you, while I've never taken the right lane on the Parkway's main roadbed, I am certain the least VC option- the MUP- is the most practical and the safest route to Coney Island. But- and this is a big but- making the roadbeds of both CIA and Ocean Parkway suitable for cyclist use would depend not on the behavior of the cyclists but rather on modifying the behavior of the motorists who on the one hand, park, stand, u-turn and pull over at random on CIA, and who speed far beyond posted limits on Ocean Parkway.
These two (regrettably long) examples are not mere anecdotes. Theyre' routes I ride regularly, and, sadly, some of the least hectic, least chaotic routes I employ as a commuter through the boroughs of Brooklyn and Manhattan. (Say what you like, but, flawed as it is, I breathe I sigh of relief every morning when I get north of Canal on Hudson and reach the bike path. If nothing else, cars avoid it because there's almost always a delivery truck parked in the middle of it, and I'd rather slow down behind a panel truck then be competing for lane space with cars who, glad to be past the Hooland Tunnel approach, drop the hammer in a big rush to get to the next red light.) So I guess what I'm saying is VC's a nice idea, but I live here, not there.
gritface
08-02-05, 11:00 PM
I'll try one more time. What is the point of ghost bikes?
I was riding with a friend (in a car) and he swerved toward and back from a cyclist on the road a few years ago. Then he laughed. I let him know that it was not cool and not funny. In that case I was a peer that make him think about his action and the extreme foolishness of his decision. The 'joke' could've had grave consequences if something had gone wrong.
Now replace me with another peer who would have laughed.
I think the eeriness of ghostbikes is an image that will stamp into people's conscience.
Yes, but what is the point, and is it good for cycling advocacy to make that point?
The problem with ghost cycles is that they are predicated on the idea that motorists need to be more aware of cyclists so that we have fewer car-bike collisions and fatalities. Why is that a problem for cycling advocacy? Because it makes bicycling seem much more dangerous than it really is. In particular, it makes it seem like the onus for making cycling in traffic safe falls on the motorists, and, thus, out of control of the cyclists. That makes it seem like cyclists are sitting ducks out there. Is that good for cycling advocacy? You tell me. How enticing to you is the concept of being a sitting duck to a 4,000 lbs vehicle?
I think we need to stop complaining about motorists. We need to stop trying to change motorists. We need to stop seeing motorists and cars as our problem, and start looking at our behavior as cyclists as the problem (because it is). That puts the onus, and the power, on us to solve our problem, not on a group of people (motorists) over which we have hardly any influence, much less control.
I too appreciate the effort of ghost cycles, bike lanes, blue lanes, etc. etc., but I think they are misguided efforts, and end up hurting cycling advocacy more than they help it.
Jeez Louise... :rolleyes:
When are you actually going to volunteer to become a member of your local community's Bicycle Advisory Committee, and give us all a break, Serge?
And, IMO, motorist education should be focus number one, regardless of whether you support bike lanes or not.
And these are memorials, and not necessarily an attempt to change motorist behavior, despite the way the original article played it, so have some respect for the dead, why don't you?
I too appreciate the effort of ghost cycles, bike lanes, blue lanes, etc. etc., but I think they are misguided efforts, and end up hurting cycling advocacy more than they help it.
I disagree. I think ghost cycles do make motorists more aware that they are driving a 2 ton weapon. I also think that the more bike lanes we have, the more "normal people" will commute on bike, which will in turn put more cyclists on the road, which will in turn make motorists more aware of us. Also, I, as a cyclists who owns a car, beleive that bike lanes are an approprite solution depending on the speed limit and other atributes of the road in question.
St. Louis Ghost Bike:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=82623
Keep Cycling,
In New York City, the ghost bikes function primarily as memorials. You can tell their intended targets are not motorists because they're often somewhat out of the way and have these itty-bitty little signs on them that no one in a car could possibly hope to see.
In as far as a secondary purpose is behavior modification, they function as reminders to both cyclists and motorists.
FINALLY, the point. If I were to see a ghost bike, I would certainly think "someone got badly hurt here" (are these all fatal accidents, by the way?) Which would lead me to check the surroundings. Maybe that spot is yet another example of bad city planning. Or maybe there's temporarily a set of circumstances leading to added risk (construction site etc). Of course it could also be a result of plain old stupidity from cager's or biker's part (or both). We don't know. But it would most definitely serve as a heads-up signal.
I cannot see how that hurts cycling advocacy.
--J
brokenrobot
08-03-05, 08:19 AM
I never wrote, said, implied or thought that encouraging motorists to be vigilant HURTS cycling advocacy.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what you said above. Here it is again, with bold added by me for emphasis:
The problem with ghost cycles is that they are predicated on the idea that motorists need to be more aware of cyclists so that we have fewer car-bike collisions and fatalities.
(snip)
I too appreciate the effort of ghost cycles, bike lanes, blue lanes, etc. etc., but I think they are misguided efforts, and end up hurting cycling advocacy more than they help it.
Unless I'm no longer comprehending English, your exact argument is that ghost bikes (in theory) make motorists more aware of cyclists, and that ghost bikes (therefore) hurt cycling advocacy.
I agree with your argument that cyclists must also be hypervigilant, but I think it's irresponsible to let dangerous drivers off the hook, and that's exactly the effect of your "VC can always save you, every single time" campaign. Does VC save lives? Absolutely. Is it SO EFFECTIVE that we can ignore the fact that many drivers are actively deranged? No, it is not.
The ghost bikes that I have seen in Pittsburgh lack the signage which really helps drive on the point. Has anybody ever see a ghost bike on a local broadcast news story?
I only seen 2 of them, but they don't seem to stay up to long, do the people that put them up take them down, or is the city stealing them?
Jeez Louise... :rolleyes:
When are you actually going to volunteer to become a member of your local community's Bicycle Advisory Committee, and give us all a break, Serge?
And, IMO, motorist education should be focus number one, regardless of whether you support bike lanes or not.
And these are memorials, and not necessarily an attempt to change motorist behavior, despite the way the original article played it, so have some respect for the dead, why don't you?
Serge is a member of the local San Diego County Bike Coalition... and has a rather uh, unique angle on things presented there. One thing he does promote is that bicycles are vehicles (as if we couldn't guess) and that facilities for cyclists should not put the cyclists in a pedestrian mode. Some new bike paths for instance are being discussed. In implementing these paths some folks have no issues with the paths emerging from the sides of roadways and the cyclists having to use crosswalks and other means to merge from the paths via a pedestrian mode to a cyclist mode. Serge advocates that paths should have on and off ramps similar to freeways, and thus cyclists would merge into the motor traffic lanes rather than be thrust at perpendicular angles.
Now this is not to fully support Serge as at times some of his ravings and rantings are clearly from the book of the world as Serge sees it.
I tend to think his strict VC rantings are based on idealizing the writings of Forester, whereas the real world is more random (as pointed out by Laika -- nice comments BTW) and by the writings of Hurst. I think this is further exemplified by the reality that while traffic in general is predictable, individual motorists are not.
BTW regarding motorist education... forget it... lost cause... you will not be able to modify the motorists behaviour as such in any real way. Changing the roadways is a better approach. The current trend of building "raceways" within towns and accepting the 85 percentile of speeding drivers as the new speed limit will do nothing but reinforce the trend of motorits bad habits and raceway manners. Change the roads, and the drivers will have to respond.
noisebeam
08-03-05, 10:30 AM
Serge is a member of the local San Diego County Bike Coalition... and has a rather uh, unique angle on things presented there. ....
Serge advocates that paths should have on and off ramps similar to freeways, and thus cyclists would merge into the motor traffic lanes rather than be thrust at perpendicular angles.
Now this is not to fully support Serge as at times some of his ravings and rantings are clearly from the book of the world as Serge sees it.
Even if folks don't agree with Serge, I think it is important to have Serge like characters in every city to balance the often poorly thought out 'bike facilities' that spring up in every city. If it were not for anti-BL pure-VC folks, some cities would end up with completely separated pedestrian like facilities (I know my city has its share of them)
Al
Helmet Head
08-03-05, 10:56 AM
I never wrote, said, implied or thought that encouraging motorists to be vigilant HURTS cycling advocacy.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what you said above. Here it is again, with bold added by me for emphasis:
The problem with ghost cycles is that they are predicated on the idea that motorists need to be more aware of cyclists so that we have fewer car-bike collisions and fatalities.
(snip)
I too appreciate the effort of ghost cycles, bike lanes, blue lanes, etc. etc., but I think they are misguided efforts, and end up hurting cycling advocacy more than they help it.
Unless I'm no longer comprehending English, your exact argument is that ghost bikes (in theory) make motorists more aware of cyclists, and that ghost bikes (therefore) hurt cycling advocacy.
Yes, you are having trouble comprehending English, or at least mine, which could be at least as much my fault as yours. Let me try again.
First, I reject the notion that ghost bikes make motorists more aware of cyclists, and thus make cycling safer, at least to any significant degree. I recognize that the purpose of ghost bikes (again, I'm talking about the ones in Seattle per the article and website cited in the OP of this thread) is to attempt to make motorists more aware of cyclists, and thus make cycling safer, but I contend that the attempt is doomed to failure.
Second, since I reject the notion that they make motorists more aware, my point that ghosts bikes hurt bicycling advocacy is obviously not predicated on that notion (which is what your attempt to summarize my "exact" argument holds).
My argument about the way ghost bikes hurt bicycling advocacy isthat they inadverdently reinforce the notion that keeps countless potential cyclists from taking up cycling: the belief that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous; that cycling in traffic imposes an unacceptably high risk on the participant, a risk over which the cyclist has no reasonable ability to mitigate down to a reasonable level. People may not think of it in exactly those terms, but talk to just about anyone who is physically capable of bicycling, but chooses to not participate, and this belief will invariably surface, one way or another. The notion that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous is based on the belief that the primary danger to cyclists in traffic is the non-vigilant motorist, to whom the cyclist is a sitting duck. Ghost bikes reinforce this notion by reminding potential cyclists of the (what they believe to be inherent and unavoidable) dangers of cycling in traffic.
Instead of focusing on initiatives like ghost bikes (and bike lanes for that matter, but that's another thread) that reinforce the superstitions that inhibit potential cyclists from taking up cycling (and thus hurt bicycling advocacy), I believe advocates should be focused on initiatives that emphasize the cyclist's ability to mitigate the risk of urban traffic cycling down to an acceptable level through adjustments in his own behavior (the most that Laika's anecdotes show is that the risk cannot be mitigated down to zero through cyclist behavior alone, but she has already essentially conceded my point, by choosing to urban cycle if nothing else: even without any additional improvements on the part of motorists becoming more vigilant, the risk incurred by the vigilant urban cyclist is already acceptably low).
I hope that makes it more clear.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-03-05, 11:15 AM
Serge is a member of the local San Diego County Bike Coalition... and has a rather uh, unique angle on things presented there ...
Now this is not to fully support Serge as at times some of his ravings and rantings are clearly from the book of the world as Serge sees it.
Rather Unique Angle? Does that mean he clearly states (or that it is clearly understood by the rational members of the local San Diego County Bike Coalition) that he speaks only for himself and that he represents only a Coalition of One/Serge World?
Helmet Head
08-03-05, 11:50 AM
I agree with your argument that cyclists must also be hypervigilant, but I think it's irresponsible to let dangerous drivers off the hook, and that's exactly the effect of your "VC can always save you, every single time" campaign. Does VC save lives? Absolutely. Is it SO EFFECTIVE that we can ignore the fact that many drivers are actively deranged? No, it is not.
I'm not letting dangerous drivers off the hook. I'm not saying we can ignore dangerous drivers. I'm just saying we should weigh the full consequences of putting so much attention on them before we do so, and I don't see that happening.
Active cyclists like us have already decided that the risks of cycling in traffic are acceptably low (or we wouldn't do it). Would we like to make cycling even safer, if possible? Of course. So, from our perspective, an initiative like ghost bikes makes perfect sense. After all, worst case, even if it doesn't have any effect, at least we tried. What's the harm?
That's the question: what's the harm? In particular, what's the harm to bicycling advocacy? To understand the harm, I suggest we put aside our perspective as active cyclists, and try to put ourselves in the shoes of the potential cyclist.
So, you're thinking about taking up cycling, cycle commuting to work. You enjoy bike riding. You like the health benefits. You like the idea of transporting yourself without contributing to global warming and further depleting natural resources. The logistics are worked; there are showers at work. You've even calculated the personal financial advantages. But you're still on the fence. What about those "actively deranged" car drivers out there? Collisions happen. If they happen to you on a bike, with no cage, you're likely to end up a dead duck. So as you're mulling all this over, driving along, you see something up ahead. What's that? A bike, a bike painted all white, with a sign attached to it. What does the sign say? "A CYCLIST WAS STRUCK HERE. #43".
Now, how do you think this little reminder might affect this potential cyclist who is trying to decide whether to start commuting to work on his bike? Which way is it likely to nudge him?
Back to my original question: Even if ghost bike programs don't have any positive effect in terms of making cycling safer, what's the harm to bicycling advocacy?
Rather Unique Angle? Does that mean he clearly states (or that it is clearly understood by the rational members of the local San Diego County Bike Coalition) that he speaks only for himself and that he represents only a Coalition of One/Serge World?
Noisebeam hit it on the head... he provides balance. Some folks would just as soon put bike lanes and the like everywhere... that is their view of the world... counter arguements should be made. Other folks love bike paths, without looking at the bigger picture of bikes as something beyond tourist toys. It is a complex world out there. Even your views should be recognized as having validity... which I hope others realize too.
I respect Serge's viewpoint and support his rights to express his views, although we are often in opposition about details...
Don't mark me as a supporter... just realize that I feel that everyone has a voice.
Bi-cyclist is banned.
Koffee
Mod
Helmet Head
08-03-05, 12:48 PM
Have my posts in this thread helped anyone to at least consider the possibility that ghost bikes cause more harm than good in term of effectively furthering the interests of bicycling advocacy?
Anyone?
Or am I wasting my time here?
Have my posts in this thread helped anyone to at least consider the possibility that ghost bikes cause more harm than good in term of effectively furthering the interests of bicycling advocacy?
Anyone?
Or am I wasting my time here?
I have considered and rejected as wrong the theory that ghost bikes cause more harm than good in term of effectively furthering the interests of bicycling advocacy.
noisebeam
08-03-05, 12:59 PM
Have my posts in this thread helped anyone to at least consider the possibility that ghost bikes cause more harm than good in term of effectively furthering the interests of bicycling advocacy?
Anyone?
Or am I wasting my time here?
This has made me think about them. I am really neutral on them, before and after this.
I see them causing this reaction to typical driver (if they notice them at all) "oh my, some crazy cyclist was killed - (looks to kids in rear seat) this is why you should never ride on the road and always wear you helmet".
I think they do emphasize/exagurate the dangers of cycling and whatever bias the observer has, it will fit into that bias (i.e. if they think cyclists are a nusance, well its what they get, if they think cyclistsbreak laws, well its what they get, if they think cyclist are daredevils, well its what they get, if they respect cyclists, well those other drivers are the problem)
Bottom line is getting more (trained, knowledgeable, thoughtful or experienced) cyclists on the roads helps cycling I think.
Al
Ghost bikes should make cyclists pause and think. We are the only ones who can immediately, this very moment, make street cycling a safer activity.
Almost all--literally--of the cyclists in my mid-American city ride in one of two styles. Some ride with reckless speed in traffic, around traffic, against traffic. I guess they arrive quickly, when they arrive at all. Most cyclists here, on the other hand, ride with slow trepidation on the sidewalk or in the gutter. They are pretty much oblivious to traffic in driveways and cross streets. It's a wonder these ones ever get anywhere at all.
Both styles of cyclists have one thing in common. They rely on motorists to see them and keep them safe. Fortunately, the vast majority of motorists do an outstanding job of respecting and protecting both types of cyclists. There are a few crazy cagers on American streets, and their sins are widely reported on this forum. But stop for a moment and thank the countless motorists you meet in safe encounters every time you ride in traffic.
Does the driving behavior of a few motorists need to be modified? Yes, of course. Traffic enforcement should focus on these reckless enraged criminals. The police should take seriously--investigate and prosecute--cyclist reports of dangerous drivers. Perhaps this would be a logical struggle for bicycle safety advocates. What do you think could or should be done along these lines?
But will it be fruitful, or even necessary, to try modifying the driving behavior of all, or most drivers? If I'm reading you all right, this is the area where Laika and others believe the ghost cycles are effective. Again, I argue that most drivers already go above and beyond their duty to respect and protect cyclists. Money spent educating people who are already doing a good job would probably be money wasted. But maybe some of you (Laika?) have ideas on which motorist behaviors should be targeted on a mass level. Anybody? What should all motorists be taught that would make cyclists safer? Please be specific, as vague ideas cannot change engrained behavior. Also, a crucial question: how long do you believe it would take for mass motorist re-education to actually change behavior and make cycling even safer than it already is?
In Laika's long post (#20--too lengthy to be quoted here), the streets she describes sound like people-eating-traps. I doubt if anyone, whether travelling by car, bike or on foot, is very safe on these streets. It is testimony to the overall diligence of all users that most accidents are prevented on these streets. I don't understand why safety advocates of all persuasions are not demanding that NYC redesign these death traps.
And that leaves us with the question of cyclist re-education. Ironically, I think that it was because Laika is an outstanding and experienced cyclist that she escaped the situations described in Post #20. Ironically, her two anecdotes, for me, are supportive of Helmet Head's position. If Laika had waited for motorists to be re-educated, she would be a dead cyclist. She took her own life in her own hands, and survived encounters which might have injured a less trained rider.
Does anybody ride in an area where the majority of cyclists truly ride in a safe and efficient manner? I doubt it, but I hope I'm wrong. But maybe it is in the domain of cyclist behavior that the ghost cycles can actually be effective. When you see a ghost cycle, as someone suggested early in this thread, "Salute 'em and ride on." But maybe we'll salute 'em and think about how we as cyclists can make ourselves safer right now.
(Sorry, Laika--I don't actually know your gender, so I said "she" because your user name ends in "a". Purely arbitrary.
Also, as a side note, I strongly suspect that Laika and Helmet Head have nearly identical riding styles, even if their ideologies are quite different. It sure would be fun to ride with the two and listen in on their debate. They are both great thinkers and great writers. We're lucky that they freely share here, as people would pay to hear their opinions.)
I-Like-To-Bike
08-03-05, 02:54 PM
Does anybody ride in an area where the majority of cyclists truly ride in a safe and efficient manner?
Perhaps you can provide YOUR definition of cyclists who "truly ride in a safe and efficient manner". And why you think other cyclists who are not "truly riding in in a safe and efficient manner" IAW YOUR definition should care.
Perhaps you can provide YOUR definition of cyclists who "truly ride in a safe and efficient manner". And why you think other cyclists who are not "truly riding in in a safe and efficient manner" IAW YOUR definition should care.I couldn't really understand most of your post, but I'm willing to accept your definition.
the city took most of them down after about 5 rush hours. those two days made a huge impact. the press that we got over that was incredible. it got posted to the AP wire and picked up all over the world. the city's official psition is in the article. to see the articles, go to the bike pittsburgh website: www.bike-pgh.org.
i think that they had a positive impact on folks. it's a year later, and random folks are still coming up to me and asking if i know who put those up and telling me how powerful and thought provoking they are. sure it makes cycling look dangerous, it is! especially when cars don't treat us well and forget that there are live human beings on top of the bikes. i think they work to humanize us so that people see us less as obstacles and more as people going somewhere.
and they did have signs on them. with a website www.ghostbike.org
another funny thing that happened with the ghost bikes in pittsburgh. my friend works at gatto cycle shop, and this dude walks in with a narled bike painted all white and was like, "uh, this is my son's bike, how much is it to fix up?" My friend was like,"dude, get out of here, that's a ghost bike!"
Also, the city gave us about five of them back upon our request. we then got permission to put them up in last summer's art's festival.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-03-05, 03:28 PM
I couldn't really understand most of your post, but I'm willing to accept your definition.
Huh?
You are the poster asking about areas/locations with "truly" efficient and safe cyclists? Who the heck are they supposed to be and what is the relevance to cycling safety/advocacy or ghost bikes?
My take on the question is that it is just another version of a contemptuous attitude towards cyclists who don't subscribe to (or are "educated" in) a specific dogmatic approach to cycling technique. An attitude that is counterproductive to the interests of cyclists as well as being counterproductive for cyclist advocacy.
Perhaps a clarification of the meaning of "truly efficient cycling" and "truly safe cycling" would make me think otherwise.
Does the driving behavior of a few motorists need to be modified? Yes, of course. Traffic enforcement should focus on these reckless enraged criminals. The police should take seriously--investigate and prosecute--cyclist reports of dangerous drivers. Perhaps this would be a logical struggle for bicycle safety advocates. What do you think could or should be done along these lines?
Good thoughtful post. I tend to lean more on Laika's side with respect to "riding a safe ride" rather than pushing the advocacy... I would much rather ride down an isolated path or side street that is "quieter" than fight the hoards in cars simply because it is my right to be there. I've had it with "rights." While I know one has to fight for rights, the battle usually happens on a 1 to 1 basis and the direct battles I have fought have shown that those motorists chose to disregard and disobey the law simply because of their own personal beliefs. There is no way I as a cyclist will try to take on each and every other motorist that also simply has opposing beliefs. There just ain't enought of us.
Now with regard to your quote... how about simply slowing down traffic... It used to be that there were posted speed limits and you had to drive those. Then some time in the late 70s or so, there was some civil liberties law suit that made static speed limits illegal... from that time forward, traffic engineers have used an 85 percentile rule to constantly boost speeds. Roads that used to be 35MPH are now 45, roads that were once 40MPH are now 50.
Faster, better handling vehicles have also contributed to this issue... even the cheap autos of today respond better than the luxury or mid size cars of say the early 60s. So the result is the constant escalation of the speeds on the roads and drivers that believe they can handle said speeds... in spite of the fact that many roads were designed for much lower speeds and traffic density.
Couple all this with the trend for wide multilaned "urban hiways," where traffic engineers design these 6 lane boulevards that motorists race down. The result is that the congestion still occurs, but at some other pinch point... not in "front of the mall" for instance.
So educating motorists... dead end prospect. Change driving habits... sure... change the roads. Traffic calming methods are becoming recognized as viable solutions.
Until then... cyclists are pretty much on their own. Traffic can be predictable, individual motorists are not.
Helmet Head
08-03-05, 03:37 PM
Roody, in a brilliant and beautiful post, is the first to point out how ghost bikes might actually benefit cycling advocacy... by raising the awareness of cyclists regarding their need to ride with care. Very interesting.
Do we have a compromise? How about ghost cycle campaign aimed at making cyclists more aware of the power they have in affecting their own safety? Would anyone not support that?
Signs on ghost bikes in such a campaign might say:
"RIDE VISIBLY AND PREDICTABLY"
"AVOID RIGHT HOOKS - MERGE LEFT"
"AVOID LEFT HOOKS - MERGE LEFT"
"PREPARE FOR STOP SIGN RUNNERS"
"PREPARE FOR RED LIGHT RUNNERS"
"DO NOT PASS ON THE RIGHT"
"SIDEWALK CYCLE AT PED SPEEDS ONLY"
"PATH/ROAD MERGE - MOTORISTS NOT LOOKING"
"RIDE OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR ZONE"
I'm still concerned that such a campaign would still be bringing attention to the dangers of cycling, but the emphasis on the effectivity of cyclist behavior in determining cyclist safety might balance it out.
Serge
Roody, in a brilliant and beautiful post, is the first to point out how ghost bikes might actually benefit cycling advocacy... by raising the awareness of cyclists regarding their need to ride with care. Very interesting.
Do we have a compromise? How about ghost cycle campaign aimed at making cyclists more aware of the power they have in affecting their own safety? Would anyone not support that?
Signs on ghost bikes in such a campaign might say:
"RIDE VISIBLY AND PREDICTABLY"
"AVOID RIGHT HOOKS - MERGE LEFT"
"AVOID LEFT HOOKS - MERGE LEFT"
"PREPARE FOR STOP SIGN RUNNERS"
"PREPARE FOR RED LIGHT RUNNERS"
"DO NOT PASS ON THE RIGHT"
"SIDEWALK CYCLE AT PED SPEEDS ONLY"
"PATH/ROAD MERGE - MOTORISTS NOT LOOKING"
"RIDE OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR ZONE"
I'm still concerned that such a campaign would still be bringing attention to the dangers of cycling, but the emphasis on the effectivity of cyclist behavior in determining cyclist safety might balance it out.
Serge
Not a bad compromise... but make it two fold... signs should also say things like:
"MOTORISTS, WATCH FOR OTHERS ON THE ROAD"
"MOTORISTS, PLEASE MERGE WHEN TURNING RIGHT"
"MOTORISTS, CYCLISTS WILL MAKE LEFT TURNS"
"REMEMBER, COME TO A COMPLETE STOP"
"RED MEENS STOP FOR ALL USERS OF THE ROAD"
"SHARE THE ROAD WITH CYCLISTS"
"MOTORISTS, WATCH FOR CYCLISTS"
"CHECK FOR A CLEAR ROAD BEFORE OPENING DOOR"
Maybe even site laws where they apply... such as
"SHARE THE ROAD WITH CYCLISTS" cvc 21202
"REMEMBER, COME TO A COMPLETE STOP" cvc 21350
It is a "two way street" out there.
Helmet Head
08-03-05, 03:54 PM
So educating motorists... dead end prospect.
And who says we never get anywhere in these discussions?
And who says we never get anywhere in these discussions?
It's even "worse" than you think... I-like-to-bike and a couple others convinced me that it was a dead end tack. (although he may deny it... as his reference was to educating cyclists... LOL)
So believe it or not... the three of us are in agreement on that one issue.
Helmet Head
08-03-05, 04:10 PM
sure [a ghost bike campaign] makes cycling look dangerous, it is! especially when cars don't treat us well and forget that there are live human beings on top of the bikes.
Q.E.D.
sbhikes
08-03-05, 08:02 PM
i think they work to humanize us so that people see us less as obstacles and more as people going somewhere.
That's how I would see it if I saw a ghost bike. A sign that a real human being died right there.
Roody, in a brilliant and beautiful post, is the first to point out how ghost bikes might actually benefit cycling advocacy... by raising the awareness of cyclists regarding their need to ride with care. Very interesting.
You only think it's brilliant because it agrees with your point of view.
This whole topic began because of the recumbent rider in St. Louis (Mike Katz) that was killed. He was a long-time cyclist in the area and a lot of people knew him. I bet that the ghost bike was more a means of memorializing him as a cyclist as any kind of advocacy. And maybe that is all it needs to be.
And if you think focusing on bad driving doesn't get any results, don't forget what MADD did for drunk driving, which used to be common-place and accepted.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.