Guardian sparks ghost bike debate

I have seen little crosses and bunches of flowers sometimes accompanied by a photo of the deceased in many places around where I live in the state of Victoria and are so often beside a tree on a straight road. These ones do their job easily because they tell you a story that it was highly likely to have been fatigue or alcohol.
I would hope that a ghost bike commemoration helps to remind drivers of their responsability rather than frighten riders off.
Whats important is that polititians see them also and act correctly.
By this I mean that they act to limit the freedoms of motorists around riders and also divert road funding into separated lanes rather than abdicating responsability by bringing in compulsory helmets as happened here.
From the evidence these do a far better job of sending out an incorrect message that cycling is dangerous than ghost bikes have ever done.

Yes - the ghost bikes initiative is a very appropriate way of showing the injustice of the road, and give dead cyclists the 'last salute', commemorate them as extraordinary people and remember their lives.

Hopefully, over time we will get some justice.

Every cyclists' death should be investigated, fairly scrutinised and lessons must be learnt: cycle provision must improve.

This is currently not happening at any meaningful scale. It is shameful to local authorities, transport authorities, the legal system, the government.

With every cyclist's death they are all bystanders.

Well, then lets get rid of all war memorials because, face it, its been decades since end of either of the European civil wars and if we keep the memorials up for soldiers that have died in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, then it could put people off joining the armed forces.

For cycling advocates to come out with, what is basically a lot of shit, they should hand in their cycle clips, stop referring to themselves as cyclists and fuck off onto public transport.

They are all a fucking disgrace.

Strange you should mention the ghost bike outside Mosquito bikes. On the one and only occasion I have visited that shop, I saw that the ghost bike is chained to a stand directly outside the shop. Was he killed right outside the shop? Presumably so.

I can understand the owner not wanting it directly outside the shop, even if that is where it happened.

I support the Ghost Bikes. It makes you think. And I haven't stopped cycling yet.

I think it is good to commemorate victims, for the sake of their friends and family. Perhaps the ghost bikes also put people off cycling but I doubt they make much difference: rationally speaking, cycling even in central London is fairly safe, certainly safer than many other activities which are not typically considered to be as dangerous. That does not however prevent many people from seeing it as dangerous, just as people fear flying when in fact the drive to the airport is likely to pose a grater risk. The fear may be irrational, but is real and if we believe that cycling needs encouragement for all of a long list of reasons (health, congestion, pollution, childrens' mobility, etc) we need to address it, by making it feel safer. That primarily means providing physically separated infrastructure for those who need it, and calming motor traffic for those who are comfortable with being on the road.

London can be a great place to cycle, no doubt. But there are problems. The ride this weekend touring bad junctions will hopefully highlight TfL need to do more for safety.

London is a car focussed city: the Cycle Superhighways encourage cycling, but possibly without enough training for those taking it up once they get out of the blue "safe zone" (which aren't safe :/).

We have a ghost bike outside out office (Goswell Road). I have never got used to its presence and often reflect on what purpose it serves. On balance, I think its a good thing. If does provide a focal point for the people who knew that particular rider. For the rest of us it serves as a reminder about how important it is to keep the pressure on policy makers to keep make roads and drivers safer.

Als - Love the comment from VeccioJo

I understand the need to commemorate somebody's life and a ghost bike is a good way of highlighting the loss, but how long should you keep the bike in place?

I am not so sure, and that goes for flowers at the roadside and all of those other memorials.

A relative of mine lives in the middle of nowhere and yet a cyclist died at the end of her driveway.

It's really sad for the family of the chap and I fully understand the need of his surviving relatives to feel like they have something to remember him by and somewhere to mark his passing, I truly do.

But its not easy every time my relative leaves her house with a young daughter having to field questions about the flowers at the roadside, photos of the deceased man and bike bottles left their by friends.

Long way round of saying that its important to have somewhere to mark the passing of someone, but its awkward having to live near such a memorial.

Tough question isn't it?

Hmm, points for and against. Perhaps they should paint the drunk drivers/ speeders white and tie them to the railings. Maybe it would put people off drinking and driving/ speeding. For uninsured drivers they could crush the cars into cubes, paint them white and use them to mark the beginning of new no car zones/ streets.

I think ghost bikes are an important reminder for us all and show respect for victims. I'd keep them for sure.

People who don't cycle will always find some excuse for not cycling (rain, lack of changing and shower facilities, danger and so on), basically because they're lazy.

do flowers tied to lamp-posts and trees deter people from driving?