It's a good statement as long as something gets done relatively soon. The longer it goes on, the more counterproductive it's likely to be, but I don't have any problem with the people affected doing this.

And the sign placement does suck. I think the bikes and blog postings like this that are likely to get some people to send letters and make calls are productive.

by Vik on Sep 10, 2009 9:16 am  

Where are they getting the bikes? Are there that many junk bikes around?

by Michael Perkins on Sep 10, 2009 9:21 am  

Whay don't we simply have a single city memorial to bicyclists killed by drivers?

Let's put the REAL sculptors to work and make it happen.

These temp things are so damned ameteurish and do not reflect well on our society's respect for the place of art and the value of having real working artists design and make our places and monuments that last and only get better with time.

It could become a rallying point for bicyclists of all kinds- even the dreaded bicycle racers could start their races there.

Why not?

by w on Sep 10, 2009 9:31 am  

@Michael Perkins: a few days after Alice's ghost bike was removed, someone placed an ad in the bikes section of Craigslist asking people to donate any old bikes they had "for a ghost bike project". That's one method the artist(s) used to gather their media.

by Jeanne on Sep 10, 2009 9:42 am  

I guess that vigilante activism for one's pet cause is more important than, for example, keeping the sidewalks clear for pedestrians in a heavily foot-trafficked area. The picture above shows only a few of these bikes, and front-and-center is one blocking the entrance to a crosswalk.

I guess that's the nature of self-righteousness. Your cause is more important than anything else. Ironically, in this case, public safety of pedestrians.

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 9:45 am  

Oh please. The bikes are not a safety hazzard. Somebody died here and nothing happened.

by BeyondDC on Sep 10, 2009 9:46 am  

Why do you think obstacles in the sidewalk, and actually blocking the crosswalk, are not a safety hazard? You don't seem to feel the same way when there's something blocking a bike lane. Oh right, double standard.

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 9:49 am  

As a temporary symbolic point, it seems to be a good one. But continuing to put them there borders on the childish and wastes time and effort that could be better spent advocating more effectively through other channels.

by ah on Sep 10, 2009 9:50 am  

I second "ah" @ 9:50. This turns something reasonable and respectful into something outlandish and lacking decorum.

Flags at half staff, black arm bands, dressing in black, whatever the symbolic action, they're temporary. As cyclists we need to do the same and move on.

by crin on Sep 10, 2009 9:56 am  

As a regular cyclist, I agree that this could be counterproductive. Blocking the sidewalk in a busy area of town pisses off pedestrians and business owners.

by SJE on Sep 10, 2009 10:05 am  

Come on, people. I'm not a cyclist, and I even find cycle commuters annoying oftentimes. But to say these memorials block the sidewalk--gimme a break. What, you were going to wrap yourself around the lightpost? I find sidewalk vendors far worse.

The one bike "blocking" the crosswalk takes up only a few feet--though I concede that maybe this one is a little in the way. Maybe a good permanent memorial could be one set of white-painted handlebars on a post, set into the concrete.

The point here is that a person died--violently and needlessly. I think these memorials are a beautiful gesture.

by JB on Sep 10, 2009 10:06 am  

About time too! Fantastic to see DC cyclists demanding the right to use the roads safely. You attempt to work within the system, but all you get are a few lines of paint on the road and a random sign asking motorists to respect the law. The arguments go back and forth 'oh but cyclists break the law too', bla bla, 'I nearly got hit by a cyclist the other day'; meanwhile PEOPLE ARE DYING!! Who is going to stop the killing? Do we need to have names to attach to each of those 22 bikes before we demand action?

Drivers need to understand that if they kill other road users because they 'didn't see them', then they will go to prison. Then we'd see less of the frankly psycopathic behavior that is standard on DC roads. There is a responsibility that comes with driving a one-ton vehicle that is NOT equivalent to walking or cycling because with cars and trucks it is far more likely that you will KILL somebody in a collision.

If as seems likely there is no will to expect drivers to take responsibility for the lives of other road users, then planners need to IMMEDIATELY institute separated cycle lanes throughout downtown DC.

by renegade09 on Sep 10, 2009 10:06 am  

"planners need to IMMEDIATELY institute separated cycle lanes throughout downtown DC."

I'd be curious to hear your idea about how to do this. Sounds wonderful. What does this involve - overpasses? Tunnels? Teleportation devices? Any idea how much it would cost?

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 10:18 am  

I agree that the complaints about the bikes blocking the sidewalk are meritless. This is clearly just a temporary thing and so long as the ADA ramps are still open, then I don't think this is unacceptable.

I also think we should use Alice's name as much as possible. I mean seriously, Charles Dickens himself couldn't come up with a character more sympathetic than Alice Swanson, age 22. Good names can help good causes. Just think of Lilly Ledbetter.

by Reid on Sep 10, 2009 10:22 am  

DDOT and the rest of the city gov't should be ashamed - this is so embarrassing.

by ontarioroader on Sep 10, 2009 10:23 am  

@Reid: "This is clearly just a temporary thing"

http://aliceswansonridesagain.wordpress.com/: "And if it leaves again, weÂ’ll put it back again. And again. And again. And this time, the ghost bike stays."

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 10:26 am  

This project was carried by DC native, cyclist, and anarchist Legba Carrefour with the help of many generous people who donated bicycles, back yards, trucks, and time.

I wonder if Legba actually lives in the neighborhood, or whether she just comes into town to deposit her "art" like Borf used to.

by monkeyrotica on Sep 10, 2009 10:27 am  

I'd be curious to hear your idea about how to do this. Sounds wonderful. What does this involve - overpasses? Tunnels? Teleportation devices? Any idea how much it would cost?

Separated cycle-tracks would indeed be very expensive. Hopefully they'll find their way into the K St. Transitway project, but yes I agree that it would be difficult and expensive to retrofit them to many roads in DC.

However, the city could install those plastic road separator signs to demarcate bike lanes. This would still enable cars to cross the lane to park, but would force them to do it with caution and in the meantime it would almost guarantee that cars would stay out of the lane. Plus it would visually narrow the traffic lane, which would cause cars to unconsciously slow down.

by Reid on Sep 10, 2009 10:28 am  

"anarchist Legba Carrefour"

Wow, that's awesome, I missed that before! The cycling community is really going to raise its profile by enlisting anarchists to achieve their societal goals. Legitimacy will be yours! Or maybe just jackassery.

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 10:30 am  

Anonymous:

What I meant was that the 22 bikes are temporary. Keeping the one bike is the goal. I would think that's pretty obvious.

by Reid on Sep 10, 2009 10:31 am  

Next up, residents and business owners start a petition to ban chaining bikes/scooters to anything other than official bike racks.

by ms on Sep 10, 2009 10:32 am  

You all should just move to Virginia already.

by DCDC on Sep 10, 2009 10:42 am  

"What I meant was that the 22 bikes are temporary."

If the goal is to keep one bike permanently, then how does pissing off the city government (and obviously, a lot of citizens, too) help achieve that goal?

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 10:49 am  

How to lose friends and entrench enemies.

by crin on Sep 10, 2009 10:51 am  

If the goal is to keep one bike permanently, then how does pissing off the city government (and obviously, a lot of citizens, too) help achieve that goal?

Uh, because that's how protests work. You think the Iranians who protested a stolen election are worried about pissing off the government? The whole point is to attract attention and embarrass the government for it's actions. It's not always the best approach, but you don't even seem to grasp the basic concept.

Besides, I'd dispute the assertion that this is "pissing off" either the government or a lot of citizens. You clearly have a thing against bikes and are trolling over a simple memorial for a girl who was f*cking run over by a garbage truck. Stay classy anonymous...

by Reid on Sep 10, 2009 11:27 am  

Umm, really? You are likening this to civil disobedienc3e against the criminal actions of a corrupt government, and election? When are you going to bring Hitler into it?

The problem is, the government was simply doing it's job. There's nothing for them to be embarassed about.

Now, the government has to remove 22 more of these. That is going to piss some people off. The very same people who you will need on your side to get a legitimate, permanent memorial.

But I guess you don't grasp the basic concept that you catch more flies with honey.

As far as pissing off citizens, maybe you should count the number of "pro" versus "con" comments here and on the Prince of Petworth post. It's not on your side.

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 11:41 am  

By the way, I don't know where you got this thing against bikes idea. I love bikes and cycling. What is the relationship between me being against a stupid, self-righteous act that actually hurts the cause -- because I would be very much in favor of a permanent memorial --- and me being against bikes?

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 11:43 am  

@ Anonymous 11:41am
You just invoked Godwin's Law by mentioning Hitler. /thread please ;)

by kidincredible on Sep 10, 2009 11:52 am  

"and embarrass the government for it's actions..."

"...the government was simply doing it's job"

It's = "it is" or "it has."

Its = possessive, just like his and hers. No apostrophe.

by JB on Sep 10, 2009 12:06 pm  

I agree that the complaints about the bikes blocking the sidewalk are meritless. This is clearly just a temporary thing and so long as the ADA ramps are still open, then I don't think this is unacceptable.

you know, not everyone who uses the sidewalk is a young healthy 20-something year old. There are many people out there with visual impairments and if you look up the laws and regulations regarding placement of street furniture and such you'd see that the need to keep sidewalks clear of unexpected obstructions for the visually impaired is taken quite seriously.

Complaints about blocking the sidewalk are "meritless"? Hardly. We all live in a community with many types of people who have many different needs - try and think outside of your own little self.

by andy on Sep 10, 2009 12:22 pm  

Just another data point in terms of how the public is receiving this:

http://dcist.com/2009/09/ghost_bikes_return_in_force_to_conn.php

As of now, 31 comments. 1 in favor. 30 against.

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 1:10 pm  

Personally I don't see how this is "blocking the crosswalk". It's NEAR the access point to the crosswalk but not in it. It's not in any different or more obtrusive location than most newspaper machines. Or, er, the Apartment Showcase things.

by C on Sep 10, 2009 1:11 pm  

It seems more to be blocking the sidewalk than the crosswalk. It's probably no more disruptive to pedestrians than double-parked trucks are to drivers, so it's cool.

by ah on Sep 10, 2009 1:25 pm  

Looking at the dcist photos, I'd say the more disrespectful thing is how hastily painted all those bikes look. I understand the need to "react" quickly to the original bike being pulled, but why not just replace the original with another *well-painted* bike?

I can either replace your Aston-Martin, or I can give you twenty Pintos...

by kidincredible on Sep 10, 2009 1:32 pm  

When considering how much these block the sidewalk, try to imagine the sidewalk crammed with people, like happens in morning and evening rush. Not as it is pictured with hardly a soul on it.

by Dupont resident on Sep 10, 2009 1:37 pm  

Wow, that's awesome, I missed that before! The cycling community is really going to raise its profile by enlisting anarchists to achieve their societal goals. Legitimacy will be yours! Or maybe just jackassery.

Actually, you know what's even more awesome? When various jackasses accuse non-entities like the "cycling community" of "enlisting anarchists to achieve their societal goals."

People who ride bikes are cyclists; that's pretty much all they have in common. It's almost as idiotic as talking about the "pedestrian community," one of whom held my neighbor up at knifepoint last week.

Now they're enlisting violent criminals to intimidate law-abiding driver-Americans!?! The arrogance!!!

by ibc on Sep 10, 2009 1:38 pm  

It deserves mentioning that based on the photo's I've seen, every single one of them, including the original memorial, is in violation of DC's bicycle parking laws.

http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/frames.asp?doc=/ddot/lib/ddot/information/bicycle/laws/18_dcmr_12.pdf

"A person may secure a bicycle to a stanchion for a period of not more than twelve (12) consecutive hours, by means of a lock or similar device, in accordance with the requirements of §1209.2."

"No person shall secure a bicycle to any of the following publicly-owned facilities:
(a) Fire hydrants;
(b) Police and fire call boxes;
(c) Electric traffic signal poles;
(d) Stanchions or poles located within bus zones or stands;
(e) Stanchions or poles located within twenty-five feet (25 ft.) of an intersection;
(f) Trees under ten inches (10 in.) in diameter."

by Jamie on Sep 10, 2009 1:40 pm  

@ibc, it's hardly an illogical conclusion to make based on reading the blog http://aliceswansonridesagain.wordpress.com/ written about the action.

"Shortly after, the Washington Area Bicycle Association installed an all-white bicycle"

"We assume the ghost bikeÂ’s removal was some sort of simple error on the part of the MayorÂ’s office"

"We put it back. And if it leaves again, weÂ’ll put it back again. And again. And again."

Isn't the WABA really the only significant entity that represents cyclists in this area? They certainly were involved in the first memorial, and the way this reads it sure sounds like they were involved in this thing.

by Anonymous on Sep 10, 2009 1:46 pm  

Very counterproductive. Seems designed more to call attention to the self-styled anarchist/artist/activist than anything else.

by Fritz on Sep 10, 2009 1:55 pm  

Seems designed more to call attention to the self-styled anarchist/artist/activist than anything else.

Bingo.

Isn't the WABA really the only significant entity that represents cyclists in this area?

Care to guess what the dues-paying membership for WABA is? I don't know offhand, but I'd guess it's probably negligible.

In any case, your interpretation of WABA's involvement based on the anonymous Wordpress site is bizarre. There's nothing in there that could be construed as a WABA endorsement of this latest self-described anarchist B.S.

by ibc on Sep 10, 2009 2:02 pm  

For those complaining about the potential safety hazzard some stationary bikes may pose to pedestrians, what do you say about the very real, proven-to-be-deadly safety hazzard of driver/cyclist conflicts at this intersection?

Seriously guys. Somebody died here. A girl is dead, because the intersection is unsafe. And you're concerned about calling attention to it?

by BeyondDC on Sep 10, 2009 2:21 pm  

BeyondDC, I think you are missing the point.

I agree that a tragedy occured. I also agree that the bike/car safety problems,are far more deadly than pedestrian v stationary bike.

That said, HOW are we to improve road safety for cyclists and pedestrians etc? The memorial might be a good statement by the cycling community, and might make us all feel good. But if it also polarizes people to see cyclists as arrogant scofflaws (see DCist,e.g.), then we are not going to get the safety improvements we want, and more people will die.

by SJE on Sep 10, 2009 3:06 pm  

There are two issues here. One is whether or not drivers and cyclists will ever love each other, and the second is whether or not drivers and cyclists can ever safely coexist.

The point of a memorial like this is to draw attention to the second issue. If people think of cyclists as arrogant scofflaws, well, at least they're thinking of cyclists, which is an improvement to the current situation. If a driver looks at a cyclist and thinks s/he is a douche, that's better for the cyclist than if the driver doesn't look at all (which is how Ms Swanson died).

So while you may be right that this doesn't help issue number one, it seems very likely to help issue number two, which is the point.

And if there any psychopaths out there who come to hate cyclists because of this so much that they drive even more aggressively and start to intentionally target them... then let's admit those folks are psychopaths and not blame the victim.

by BeyondDC on Sep 10, 2009 4:04 pm  

Cyclists are a minority and need the willing cooperation of the majority to get what they want. Lets put it another way, who has done more for Black empowerment: Barack Obama or Al Sharpton?

by SJE on Sep 10, 2009 4:09 pm  

horrible and un-necessary bicycle accidents like this will continue to happen until the people in this city wake up to the FACT that dedicated and physically separated bicycle tracks are essential for cyclists to carry on in a safe and comfortable manner.

As long as bicyclists and our bicycles are treated the same and fall under the same laws as motor vehicles- and as long as we have no alternatives to cycling in the roads with motor vehicles- this will continue to happen.

Despite what some naysayers claim- all of the countries that have dedicated and physically separated cycling tracks have MANY MANY more bicyclists and FAR LOWER accident and fatality rates than the USA.

Portland Oregon, NYC, and Saint Pete Florida are all installing these new kinds of European bike tracsk. When considering the cost of accidents and deaths- it should not be too much money to construct these in all of our major cities. We think nothing of adding or maintaining roads and airports- why not dedicated and separated bikeways too???

by w on Sep 10, 2009 4:56 pm  

The 'yield to bikes' sign is placed on the pole with the crosswalk signals and the traffic signals for that intersection--which is exactly where a driver is going to be looking when they begin to enter the intersection. Those signs are much more effective in raising awareness for bicycle safety than ghost bikes are. Drivers don't even notice a random bike chained to a pole somewhere, not even when there are twenty of them.

by ogden on Sep 10, 2009 11:47 pm  

for a second it seemed counter-productive and annoying, and then I thought about it for a second...

suppose in 1910 or so someone parked 22 cars out at the curb, painted white, in protest of automobile safety (which was just starting to be a big rallying cry at the time). They protested, and the infastructure got better. Now the curb is full of cars every day......

yes it's a bit annoying if you're not used to seeing that many bikes here, but consider this - if a lot more people were using bikes - as we'd encourage them to, the street would probably look exactly like this anyway.... and one day maybe it will.

the safety improvements like separated lanes are necessary in order to get more people to ride bikes, and when they do, it will look just like the protest here every day.

- lee

by lee.watkins on Sep 11, 2009 6:29 am  

try that in copenhagen or amsterdam sometime - police report! there are spray-painted bike all over the place! it must be some kind of protest! we try to remove them, and more keep showing up! hah...

if the city make the kind of infrastructure changes that are being asked for, then some day the city will look like this protest every day.

by Lee. Watkins on Sep 11, 2009 7:07 am  

I'm not a cyclist - I'm a committed pedestrian - but I can see by its lack of responsiveness that the city is not fulfilling its basic obligation to ensure public safety. A year has passed and they have not implemented several constructive, low-cost remedies suggested by individuals with specialized knowledge. All emotion aside, it is difficult to interpret the city's inaction as anything other than an indication that preventing someone's death is not worth their time.

Sickeningly, this is also the position of "Anonymous," who is so troubled by the "obstructive" bike. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that somehow it does encroach on your personal space. But God forbid you should have to take a few seconds out of your day to accommodate what to many is a life or death issue! Better the other way around, right? That the group of people who are pushing this issue - for the benefit of all of us - find a less effective tactic, just to mollify your peevishness?

What I don't understand is why you want to state this, over and over again. You've made it clear - you are incredibly self-centered. Its not exactly a flattering stance. But then perhaps that's why you prefer to remain anonymous.

As for those who say this is a counter-productive tactic - you know nothing about advocacy.

I think the protest is beautiful and moving. I hope the organizers will carry on, with my condolences.

by N. Miller on Sep 11, 2009 9:20 am