Ghost Bikes

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by cfsmtb, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reflecting upon the tragic loss of Kate Tamayo, and her friends placing a bike painted white near where she was killed, these articles on Ghost Bikes prove very timely.


    Quote: "......The Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin Ghost Bike Campaign is meant, not to frighten people away from riding bicycles, but to draw attention to the simple fact that, if motorists and bicyclists both pay closer attention to what they are doing...and follow the rules of the road...no one has to die on a bicycle......"


    *********************************

    'Ghost Bike' drive seeks to prevent further crashes
    http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/index.php?ntid=89334&ntpid=1
    The "Ghost Bikes" signs that can be seen along curbs in Madison and other parts of Dane County come one year after bicyclist Jessica Bullen was killed by a driver whose homicidal negligence case is today bring tried in court.

    The Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin, which launched the Ghost Bike campaign, is to hold a press conference Friday morning near the rural site east of Madison where Bullen was struck by the driver, 30-year-old Tracy J. Sorum. As part of its campaign, the federation argues that "crashes are not accidents - they can be prevented."

    Responding to remarks that Sorum's attorney, Stephen Eisenberg, made, calling what happened "an accident," the federation wrote: "No, Mr. Eisenberg, it is NOT an accident. It is a crash."

    "A crash is totally and completely preventable," the federation continued. "No one has to die when riding their bicycle on the road. The reason that people die in this manner is that someone, either the driver of the motor vehicle or the driver of the bicycle, has done something careless or illegal."

    Eisenberg was in court today, and an attempt to get comment from his law firm was unsuccessful.

    Bicycle Federation Executive Director Dar Ward said that her organization "applauded" the prosecution of Sorum, but said that the intent of the Ghost Bikes campaign was not to push criminal charges after a collision, but rather to raise awareness of bicyclists and remind more people, motorists and bicyclists alike, to follow traffic laws.

    "Our main point is that these crashes are preventable," Ward said.

    Citing a preliminary report from the state Department of Transportation, she said that the most crashes between an adult cyclist and a motorist happen at intersections when the motorist is turning. The most fatalities happen on roads where the motorist is traveling at more than 35 mph. For children on bikes, the cause for crashes is most often the child bicycling into traffic.

    While the lawn signs and Web sites are a unique approach, "Ghost Bike" campaigns have cropped up in other cities, usually with bicycles painted white marking the location of where a cyclist was killed.

    [email protected]
    Published: June 28, 2006


    *********************************

    Ghost Bikes.net
    http://ghostbikes.net/projects/ghostbikes.php
    When you see this sign, remember to look for bicyclists on the road...to follow the rules of the road...and to be ready to react to the mistakes of other road users. Crashes are not accidents...they can be prevented. No one else has to die.

    No one has to die on a bicycle. But they do.

    Contrary to popular belief, bicycling is not inherently dangerous, especially when everyone follows the rules of the road. What’s dangerous are the often-illegal interactions that occur between bicyclists and motorists every day, increasing the danger for everyone. If everyone followed existing laws more carefully, we would all be able to share the road safely.

    Unfortunately, when car meets bike in a collison, it is almost always the bicycle that loses. At motor vehicle speeds above 35 mph, the result is often a bicyclist fatality. Even if the bicyclist does not die, they may suffer life-altering injuries.

    We are all responsible for traffic fatalities when we drive a car or bicycle carelessly or lawlessly. Don't think it could happen to you? How often do you "zone out" while driving? How often does a motorist who has just hit a bicyclist say "I didn't see the bicycle"? Did they not see? Or were they not looking...not paying attention.

    The Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin Ghost Bike Campaign is meant, not to frighten people away from riding bicycles, but to draw attention to the simple fact that, if motorists and bicyclists both pay closer attention to what they are doing...and follow the rules of the road...no one has to die on a bicycle.

    A crash is not an accident...a crash can be prevented.

    When you see these signs, remember to look for bicyclists. Remember to follow the rules of the road (on bicycle OR in a car). Remember to be prepared to react to the mistakes of other road users.

    And remember...no one else has to die.


    *********************************


    Jessica Bullen Memorial Fund
    http://ghostbikes.net/about/jessicabullen.php
    Crashes are not accidents. No one else has to die. Click here to contribute to the Jessica Bullen Memorial Fund. Funds that the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin collects in memory of Jessica Bullen, a bicycle advocate who was killed in a crash with a motor vehicle, will be applied towards a motorist education program. Thank you to everyone who has generously donated in Jessica's memory so that we can work to prevent other needless deaths. Also visit StreetShare.org for similiar programs throughout the state.

    Update 6/15/06:
    The June16th issue of Madison's Isthmus paper featured an article titled "Killers on the Road: Is Dane County too quick to prosecute inattentive driving?" in which Stephen Eisenberg, Tracy Sorum's attorney, is quoted as saying, "It's called an accident the last time I checked. The law says you have to apply ordinary care, not absolute care. So what? We're going to charge crimininally each time there's a death?" Sorum is the driver who struck and killed Jessica Bullen on June 30, 2005. His trial in the case is scheduled to begin on June 26, 2006.

    The Bicycle Federation is outraged that, one year after losing one of our finest bicycle advocates as a result of Mr. Sorum's inattentive driving, inattentive driving resulting in death could possibly be considered a trivial matter.

    No, Mr. Eisenberg, it is NOT an accident. It is a crash.
     
    Tags:


  2. In aus.bicycle on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:44:53 +1000
    cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Quote: -"......The Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin Ghost Bike Campaign
    > is meant, not to frighten people away from riding bicycles, but to draw
    > attention to the simple fact that, if motorists and bicyclists both pay
    > closer attention to what they are doing...and follow the rules of the
    > road...no one has to die on a bicycle......"-


    and just how do they plan to make sure people intepret them that way?

    Big ask...

    Zebee
     
  3. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you bother to read the article, or are you simply firing off yet another generalised question without *actually* reading the details?
     
  4. In aus.bicycle on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:13:46 +1000
    cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> and just how do they plan to make sure people intepret them that way?
    >>
    >> Big ask...

    >
    > Did you bother to read the article, or are you simply firing off yet
    > another generalised question without *actually* reading the details?


    I did read it. I guess I was being too sarcastic :) (The key is in
    the "make sure" bit.)

    The problem I see is that it's hard to get people to interpret symbols
    the way you want, especially something that is "someone died here".

    You can *say* "what we want you to think is that you must be careful"
    but I think it's a very big ask to have people think that and not
    "someone died here, look how dangerous bikes are, all those careless
    people. Not me of course, I'm an above average driver".

    I don't like bike activism that focuses on bikes as victims instead of
    bikes as fun and useful. Because it's harder for people to take the
    wrong message away from "bikes are fun and good" compared to "someone
    died on a bike".

    Activism aimed at professionals to get them to work in safety issues,
    that's one thing. Activism aimed at the general public is another,
    and I don't think victim status does anything but "prove" cycling is
    dangerous.

    IF motorcycle stats are any guide, the best way to get people to look
    for cyclists is to have them be one, or someone they know and like is
    one. Telling them "a cyclist died here" is not something I think is
    useful or helpful. If they didn't think it was dangerous before, how
    will this keep them of that mind? and if they did, how will it change
    that perception?

    Zebee
     
  5. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    So people are supposed to grieve in private, pretend road issues don't exist, don't feel compelled stand up and express what they truly feel unless the so-called professionals and the authorities act on our behalf?

    The loss of a loved one isn't important to anyone unless it's needlessly sensationalised by the media? The public are firmly entitled to stand up and express they beliefs regardless whether we think it's either unfashionable, impractical or not. That's why someone loved Kate Tamayo and Jessica Bullen enough to place memorials to where they died. This is a highly personal form of activism, whether the person placing a memorial or ghost bike realises it's "activism" or not. Whether you comprehend, or even like that basic human need to cherish someones memory is irrevalant. It's a personal act of respect.
     
  6. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    cfsmtb wrote:
    > Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
    > >
    > > Activism aimed at professionals to get them to work in safety issues,
    > > that's one thing. Activism aimed at the general public is another,
    > > and I don't think victim status does anything but "prove" cycling is
    > > dangerous.

    >
    > So people are supposed to grieve in private, pretend road issues don't
    > exist, don't feel compelled stand up and express what they truly feel
    > unless the so-called professionals and the authorities act on our
    > behalf?


    You're confusing grieving with making a difference to road safety.
    They're orthogonal.

    IMO, Zebee's right, the average punter won't know what the various well
    intentioned websites are saying about some ghost logo, they'll just
    think (if they even notice) that someone died on a bike - "damn stupid
    cyclists, riding's dangerous, they'll get killed .. see .. there's
    another dead one".

    Expand the circle of care and you make a difference. Carry on on
    various websites preaching to the converted, and you waste your time if
    making a difference is your intention.
     
  7. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    This isn't about a personal POV. It is clearly about *other* peoples right to respect others. Don't confuse the two when conducting a strawman argument

    And ditto - motorists can glance at various road signage and mutter "Damn stupid blackspot/speed limit/black ice, why should we care?"

    Care to elaborate on that one Carl? Or should everyone simply conduct their cycling discussions solely around ego-enhancing bling and performance tips?
     
  8. "cfsmtb" wrote:
    >
    > Bleve Wrote:
    >>
    >> You're confusing grieving with making a difference to road safety.
    >> They're orthogonal.

    >
    > This isn't about a personal POV. It is clearly about *other* peoples
    > right to respect others. Don't confuse the two when conducting a
    > strawman argument


    Not according to the article quoted

    "Bicycle Federation Executive Director Dar Ward said that her
    organization "applauded" the prosecution of Sorum, but said that the
    intent of the Ghost Bikes campaign was not to push criminal charges
    after a collision, but rather to raise awareness of bicyclists and
    remind more people, motorists and bicyclists alike, to follow traffic
    laws."

    >
    > Bleve Wrote:
    >> IMO, Zebee's right, the average punter won't know what the various well
    >> intentioned websites are saying about some ghost logo, they'll just
    >> think (if they even notice) that someone died on a bike - "damn stupid
    >> cyclists, riding's dangerous, they'll get killed .. see .. there's
    >> another dead one".

    >
    > And ditto - motorists can glance at various road signage and mutter
    > "Damn stupid blackspot/speed limit/black ice, why should we care?"


    I think the difference here is the human factor. People (drivers and
    cyclists alike) will very readily lay blame on another person, especially if
    from an 'outcast' group, moreso than blaming the conditions or facilities on
    the road.

    Personally I think that focusing on one or two limited events is never the
    best in road safety. Amy Gillet has only been a symbole for what's occurring
    in the wider world on our roads.
    --
    Cheers
    Peter

    ~~~ ~ [email protected]
    ~~ ~ _- \,
    ~~ (*)/ (*)
     
  9. "cfsmtb" wrote:
    >
    > No, Mr. Eisenberg, it is NOT an accident. It is a crash.


    A bit of a problem here - check the dictionary definition. An accident is an
    incident that was not intended. If we insist that road collisions are *not*
    accidents then we are saying that they were deliberate. A big step.

    If it was deliberate then the driver should be on a charge of murder, or
    manslaughter at the very least. All jokes aside, I don't think you are
    really intending to say that all cyclist/car collisions were a result of
    deliberate intent.

    --
    Cheers
    Peter

    ~~~ ~ [email protected]
    ~~ ~ _- \,
    ~~ (*)/ (*)
     
  10. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    I clearly did not say that - do not wrongly attribute words that were mentioned by the articles author.
     
  11. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    cfsmtb wrote:
    > Bleve Wrote:
    > >
    > > You're confusing grieving with making a difference to road safety.
    > > They're orthogonal.

    >
    > This isn't about a personal POV. It is clearly about *other* peoples
    > right to respect others. Don't confuse the two when conducting a
    > strawman argument


    No, it's not, not accorting to the article you posted anyway.

    > Bleve Wrote:
    > > IMO, Zebee's right, the average punter won't know what the various well
    > > intentioned websites are saying about some ghost logo, they'll just
    > > think (if they even notice) that someone died on a bike - "damn stupid
    > > cyclists, riding's dangerous, they'll get killed .. see .. there's
    > > another dead one".

    >
    > And ditto - motorists can glance at various road signage and mutter
    > "Damn stupid blackspot/speed limit/black ice, why should we care?"


    I think you can see the difference.

    > Bleve Wrote:
    > > Expand the circle of care and you make a difference. Carry on on
    > > various websites preaching to the converted, and you waste your time
    > > if
    > > making a difference is your intention.

    >
    > Care to elaborate on that one Carl?


    By all means.
    The circle of care is a theory concerning what it is that makes people
    "care" about other things. A good reference is some of Pinker's
    writing on evolutionary psych, but I'll explain a little (I figure you
    won't actually read up on it, so hey ..I'll elaborate ...)

    People care about things that they feel some connection to. You're an
    example, you care about this punter that died in Tassie, because you
    and her have some connection, she's in your circle of care because you
    bave a link - you both ride bikes (you do ride, right? anyway .. I'll
    resist further ad hominens ... ).

    My mum cares about cyclists, because she knows I'm one, and like it or
    not, she has to care (it's genetic! parents care about their kids, they
    can't help it!). As such, she pays more attention to them when
    driving. Otherwise, it's just some random person, and there are a -lot-
    of random people.

    People these days care about odd things like seal pups in the arctic?
    Why? This theory would suggest it's because their circle of care has
    expanded beyond the usual - family, friends, local community because of
    some link via a celebrity that they feel some association to, or
    something similar. There's exceptions, of course, but in general the
    theory seems pretty good. I've done a bad job of explaining it, I fear
    :)

    If you accept any of it as being valid, then a good way to expand the
    circle is to let more people know you ride, and to get more people
    riding. Famous people are good, but kids at football clubs etc ...
    anything ... get people riding and the people that know those people
    will start to care.

    Will that make the roads safer? A little, I think. Not a lot unless a
    drastic reduction in the number of cars occurs, but a little bit.
    Maybe enough to cut down on the (very few anyway ...) number of
    cyclists killed on the road.
     
  12. coppershark

    coppershark New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Peter Signorini wrote"

    "A bit of a problem here - check the dictionary definition. An accident is an
    incident that was not intended."

    I would guess that Peter is either an educator, lawyer or a journalist but somebody has to do those jobs!

    I also prefer the usage of crash over accident because 99.9% of these are due to driver error or lack of skill. Use of the term "accident" allows the "get out" factor to operate i.e "it wasn't my fault" whereas it almost certainly was.

    WE should all try to drive or ride in the belief that every other road user is a complete idiot and give them space ccordingly.

    The Shark
     
  13. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-06-29, coppershark (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >
    > "Peter Signorini wrote"
    >
    > "A bit of a problem here - check the dictionary definition. An accident
    > is an
    > incident that was not intended."
    >
    > I would guess that Peter is either an educator, lawyer or a journalist
    > but somebody has to do those jobs!


    You guessed right the first time :)

    > I also prefer the usage of crash over accident because 99.9% of these
    > are due to driver error or lack of skill. Use of the term "accident"
    > allows the "get out" factor to operate i.e "it wasn't my fault" whereas
    > it almost certainly was.


    Or that it was inevitable, because accidents are unpredictable and
    inevitable.

    But we have had this discussion many times prior.

    > WE should all try to drive or ride in the belief that every other road
    > user is a complete idiot and give them space ccordingly.
    >
    > The Shark


    I prefer to carry around a shark all the time with a fricking laser on
    its head. That'll keep the motorists away.

    --
    TimC
    -o)
    /\\ The penguins are coming...
    _\_v the penguins are coming...
     
  14. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pfff, now you're cherry-picking and delving into pop psychology. I'll strongly suggest you stick to CF bling and cycling tips, as this thread shows you're clearly out of your depth when in comes to basic social awareness, or indeed, a wider perspective on road issues.
     
  15. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    As for the "accident" debate, Noel Ashby, Assistant Commissioner, Victoria Police has a very similar attitude,
    http://www.woj.com.au/resources-and-support/the-age-driving-the-issue-home-29406/

    Damn good article, pity it wasn't originally online, so it ended up being scanned & checked after some very dodgy ocr..

    I'll strongly agree with your last remark, taking that approach does seem to minimise the amount of incidents I encounter. :)
     
  16. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    cfsmtb wrote:
    > Bleve Wrote:
    > >
    > > By all means.
    > > The circle of care is a theory concerning what it is that makes people
    > > "care" about other things. A good reference is some of Pinker's
    > > writing on evolutionary psych, but I'll explain a little (I figure you
    > > won't actually read up on it, so hey ..I'll elaborate ...)

    >
    > Pfff, now you're cherry-picking and delving into pop psychology. I'll
    > strongly suggest you stick to CF bling and cycling tips, as this thread
    > shows you're clearly out of your depth when in comes to basic social
    > awareness, or indeed, a wider perspective on road issues.


    Your turn to elaborate, or will you do the usual cut & run?
     
  17. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    And Carl, in turn, will probably do his usual "cut and run" excuse by proclaiming to any response I make is "irrelevant". Face it, time and time again on a.b, you generally whinge when this "issue" is being discussed and do your best to deride, not discuss, the topic. It sadly comes down to the fact you have a limited perspective on what is entailed by cycling on the roads.
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>,
    cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Or should everyone simply conduct their cycling discussions solely
    > around ego-enhancing bling and performance tips?



    It can't achieve much less than hectoring and questioning the motives of
    everyone who disagrees with you.

    For goodness sake, some of us are sick to death of people telling us how
    dangerous cycling is. If someone can convince me that ghost signs are
    going to get more people out on bikes rather than fewer, terrific. But I
    haven't seen that argued here.

    --
    Shane Stanley
     
  19. "cfsmtb" wrote:
    >
    > Peter Signorini Wrote:
    >>
    >> If it was deliberate then the driver should be on a charge of murder,
    >> or
    >> manslaughter at the very least. All jokes aside, I don't think you are
    >> really intending to say that all cyclist/car collisions were a result
    >> of
    >> deliberate intent.

    >
    > I clearly did not say that - do not wrongly attribute words that were
    > mentioned by the articles author.


    Not at all. They were *my* words. It was intended to be a question (albeit
    rhetorical) about your attitude to accidents as being unintended events.

    --
    Cheers
    Peter

    ~~~ ~ [email protected]
    ~~ ~ _- \,
    ~~ (*)/ (*)
     
  20. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue is, why can't sensitive cycling related-topics be broached without the same repetitve "nothing can be done" approach, or simply ignoring and turning the other cheek?

    As for cycling is dangerous, that is a complete load of bollox. I've constantly argued strongly against that, and it is disingenuous of you suggest that I have that approach. You can google that if you wish. Actually, taking the attitude that is no problem exists all at between road users & cyclists is extremely disingenuous.

    Numerous traffic engineers don't take the needs of cyclists seriously, some cycling advocates propose separate facilities rather education and awareness over than dealing with the issues directly. It's all just piss-farting around without utilising clear speaking in tackling the issue of mixed modes of transport on the roads.

    I posted the "Ghost Bike" topic as some advocates here and overseas feel as if it is a legitimate method to convey their message. You don't like that? Your call. Personally I believe a "Ghost bike" installation should only be undertaken with the express permission of the family and friends of the cyclist, it should never be used as a tokenistic measure to garner attention from the media.
     
Loading...
Loading...