Talk:Ghost bike

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jo Slota

Althought this fact was deleted from this article Jo Slota of San Francisco is attributed with creating the first Ghost Bikes. http://www.ghostbike.net/

His is a personal art project not directly related to the current Ghost Bikes cause, but does predate them. Seems Jo sparked the idea that became a national movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.183.115 (talk) 19:07, July 20, 2007

Jo Slota definitely deserves a mention even if his motives are completely different from the more widespread Ghost Bike thing. I'm not actually sure what his motives were, abstract street sculpture? Unlikely there was no connection, but which way? Slota's project is much more interesting if it was the origin of the white paint idea. ProfDEH (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unincluded history

2 items that might be good to add to the history: In 1998, a friend of mine, Rebecca Kresse, was killed while biking in San Francisco. A big group of her friends got together and took over the intersection where she was killed (24th & Valencia) and painted a big white bike with angel wings on the street. A year later, we went back and repainted it.

In 2001, San Francisco cyclist Chris Robertson was killed by a road-raging trucker while biking to the wake of another cyclist. Someone made a white bike memorial, with angel wings, and put it on the Bike Hut on the waterfront. (Others could get more details, photos, press clippings.) The official city body for communicating with cyclists, the Bicycle Advisory Committee, supported the installation of the sculpture at the site of his death: http://sfgov.org/bac/ftp/meetingarchive/archive/BicycleAdvisoryCommittee/sfgov3/archive90c0.html?dept=2030&sub=&year=2001&dtype=2071&file=12064 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.117.68 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbike

Someone deleted the word "fringe". What's wrong with calling Ghostbike a fringe organisation? My point was it's not exactly the London Cycling Campaign, unlikely more than a few people are actively involved. This is a minor element of cycling subculture and the article needs to make this clear. Any views on this issue are requested. (Apologies to the user I originally attributed the change to.) ProfDEH (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White bikes

Sorry to spoil anyone's fun but the idea of painting bikes white actually goes back to Amsterdam in the 1960s. This was an anarchist project to liberate two-wheel transport - white bikes were free, help yourself and then leave it for someone else - in some ways an ancestor of book-crossing... Boulet rouge (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think of ghost bikes as "fun", but I digress... I don't think anyone is suggesting that nobody thought of painting bikes white before. However, the use of white bikes as memorials seems to be more recent. BTW, the info you suggest is also at Community bicycle program. Katr67 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal v political

Part of the article was deleted by an anonymous user who objects to the idea that these memorials are politically motivated. I can understand that this looks like a cynical statement, but the facts are: the ghostbikes are put up by a group of people. They are unlikely to personally know all the victims. Looking closely at the records on the referenced websites, some of the incidents are far from fatal anyway - near misses in some cases. The motivation for setting up a group is very likely to be a personal loss but the whole point is to put up as many as possible I've edited the opening paragraph to allow for the comment:

Before: "These memorials are a political statement, erected by pro-cycling organizations, unlike the typical roadside memorial which is usually purely personal."
After: "These memorials are mainly a political statement (aiming to make a wider point beyond personal loss)), erected by pro-cycling organizations, unlike the typical roadside memorial which is usually purely personal."

ProfDEH (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

I don't think those quotes belong here and suggest they are deleted. More sentiment than fact. The links are there to follow if anyone wants to read more personal accounts. ProfDEH (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Can please someone add a link too Wikimedia Commons Category:Ghost bikes? Thank you. --213.142.126.171 (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, I was editing both Qwest and here and did a bad copy past. Sorry about that!

External links removed

Editors put in external links that should have been used as a source if needed. Good info so if it needs to be pulled from it should be linked to the main page of the site, alternatives should be found, or it needs to be worked in as a source. The links are as follows:

Not sure about taking it off the page without first adding to the article (as you suggest). Isn't it better to leave the article with access to this information one way or the other? ProfDEH (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't belong in the external links per the guidelines, simple as that. I think it was rather courteous to remind people on the talk page what is available.Cptnono (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost" hit, hurt and killed?

From my reading of the source provided, as well as a little research into the subject, ghost bikes are only placed when a cyclist is at the very least actually hit. Is this word choice appropriate? It seems to imply ghost bikes are placed wherever any cyclist thinks they might have been hit but weren't. At least to me the entire article reads as condemning the movement as in some way "whiny", does this represent NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.185.93 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source in the article says otherwise. There are a several mentions of infrastructure concerns and almost getting hit throughout the piece.Cptnono (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged the intro to reflect the fact that not all ghostbikes represent anything serious. I wanted to keep the bike and the memorial aspect in the same first sentence, one is meaningless without the other. It's tempting to talk about ms-placed enthusiasm but I suppose that's not sufficiently factual. Also removed that sentimental quotes section as suggested above - nobody has objected. ProfDEH (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if the cyclist was partially at fault?

I've seen a ghost bike placed recently where the news reports said the cyclist left a bike path and rode directly into the street traffic in front of a bus, and was subsequently run over and killed. The bus driver has not been charged, probably because he was not able to avoid the cyclist. Are ghost bikes placed to bring attention to dangerous road situations, even when the car/bus/truck driver is clearly not "at fault"? I suppose, in this situation, the fault may have been that there was no safe bike lane on the road. Que-Can (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the introductory paragraph says, there are many reasons for ghost bikes. There are no rules, anybody can put a white bike on the street for whatever reasons they may have. ProfDEH (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

Both of you should check out Wikipedia:Captions before going overboard with the reverts. The "shock effect" would be a great line to use and expand on in the prose. Do we have a source that goes into detail that you want to use?Cptnono (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the caption, as it didn't seem very succinct. Using the phrase shock effect might be a great way to draw readers into the article, but should be supported by a referenced statement in the article. My understanding is that the vast majority of ghost bikes are erected as memorials to cyclists who have been killed. I have concerns about the verifiability of this statement: "Many of these memorials are political statements erected by individuals who aim to make a wider point beyond personal loss..." -Gobonobo ^T ^C 12:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first ghostbike I saw and I'm probably just describing my own reaction. Not knowing who put it there, the effect was decidedly creepy. Totally unscientific of course. Well see what you can add to the article, it's decidedly short on content.

Most of the reference material refers to organizations, I cannot see what the objection is there - I doubt if they amount to more than a group of friends but they have a name, website etc. It's just not plausible that all those anonymous memorials are put up by relatives. But by all means add "and individuals", that does seems to be a growing trend. And read those website reports, a lot of them are just minor accidents, sometimes just near misses. "Taxi pulled a U-turn having dropped off a passenger, did not indicate and did not see me. He stopped. Said it was ironic that I don't have insurance then drove off" or "Slightly buckled rear wheel, sprained wrist" for example, see http://www.ghostcycle.org.uk. Enthusiasm exceeding serious purpose in some cases, clearly.

ProfDEH (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on the refs. I haven't combed through them so reserve the right to back track. I just wasn't sure if you knew one of the top of your head that went into detail on its creepiness. I agree and expect there will be something somewhere on it.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Possible:http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/nov/10/ghost-bikes-memorials-cycling-victims (did not beling in the EL section)Cptnono (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WM and NJ have not commented here. So yeah there is edit warring. But they aren't even bothering to look at talk while ignoring WP:ELNO. If the link would not improve the article if it was an FA then it should go. I started this discussion since I think it should instead be used as a source within the prose. The other two editors may not realize that this article has drawn edits from those who wish to ignore sources and choose to make it look like a fan page. I have no problem being extra vigilant about standards that are already in place on Wikipedia to prevent it from happening again. Might be a cute article but it isn't an EL/ It is an RS. Use it as such. And if an editor calls me a dickhead I feel cheery about calling him a cunt. But we can leave that for the noticeboards that are coming up/ Stop misusing twinkle, NJ, and stop encouraging poor editing, WC. You should both know better.Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Bikes (company)

There is a German company called Ghost Bikes that is unrelated to the subject of this article. If there were a separate article for the company, we could put a note on the top of the page saying Not to be confused with... or such. A cursory search led me to conclude that the bicycle company is probably not notable enough to have an article. While the German Wikipedia has an article on the memorials, there is no article there for the company. External links to the company's website should not be added to this article and there doesn't seem to be any need to clarify that this article does not refer to a bicycle company. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 03:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghost bike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819071007/http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu:80/cns/2007-03-27/twarowski-ghostbikesunite to http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2007-03-27/twarowski-ghostbikesunite
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/information-booth-where-did-those-ghostly-white-bikes-come-from

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ghost bike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2007-03-27/twarowski-ghostbikesunite
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/26/information-booth-where-did-those-ghostly-white-bikes-come-from/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131122015018/http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/13/3027977/ghost-bike-memorial.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/13/3027977/ghost-bike-memorial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ghost bike" as a bike without a rider

Someone added "A ghost bike may also refer to a bike without a rider. By jumping off while the bicycle is in motion, it will continue to roll until falling over or hitting an object that stops it. This is the original ghost bike." to the lead without any citations. I've removed it since it does not describe the same usage of the term "ghost bike" as the rest of the article and the claim was unsupported. It seems that alternative meanings should be clarified in a disambiguation page or in a line at the top of the article, rather than in the text itself. If I'm mistaken in this belief, feel free to revert the change. Onceafros (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]